Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja Advocate Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1067367
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-05-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Subhash Ahuja Advocate
RespondentHaryana Urban Development Authority and Others
Excerpt:
c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh **** c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 date of decision :05. 09.2013 surinder kumar gupta ....petitioner versus haryana urban development authority and others ....respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice satish kumar mittal hon’ble mr.justice mahavir s. chauhan present: mr.subhash ahuja, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.ajay nara, advocate, for the respondents. mahavir s. chauhan, j. responding to an official circular inviting applications from employees of the government of haryana, the petitioner, an employee of department of excise and taxation, haryana, applied for a 10 marla (or say 250 sq. yards) plot in sector 8, faridabad, by enclosing with his application a demand draft of rs.1597.50/- towards 10% of the price of the plot. the petitioner felt himself to be lucky on receipt of letter of allotment dated 21.04.1981 (annexure p-1) with respect to allotment of a plot measuring 30' x 75.(250 sq. yards) bearing plot no.1776, sector-8, faridabad, for a tentative price of rs.15,975/-. as directed, petitioner paid another amount of rs.2,396.25/- to make it, together with the amount of rs.1,597.50/- already deposited, 25% of the total sale consideration. the petitioner, however, opted virender singh adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 -2- to pay the remainder (75%) with interest in six equated annual instalments, which he paid as per schedule of payment given in the letter of allotment. the petitioner also paid an amount of rs.3,500/- demanded by the respondents vide letter dated 02.10.1981 (annexure p-2).on account of enhancement of compensation of land by the court under land acquisition act. petitioner visited office of respondent no.2 to take possession of the plot as he intended to raise construction but, to his utter dismay and astonishment, he was given paper possession, vide certificate dated 01.02.1989 (annexure p-3).of a plot measuring 60' x 24', or say 160 sq. yards, which he took without prejudice to his rights. petitioner then served upon the respondents a legal notice dated 06/07.06.1989, which was followed by a detailed representation dated 30.10.1989 (annexure p-4).asserting his demand for delivery of possession of 250 sq. yards plot. the second respondent ultimately responded and vide possession certificate dated 04.06.1990 (annexure p-6) delivered paper possession of the plot, this time measuring 60' x 32.or say 213.33 sq. yards, which the petitioner accepted under protest. the petitioner was still struggling hard to reconcile with the unfortunate and unfavourable circumstances when he received another jolt on receipt of a notice dated 09.11.1993 (annexure p-7) asking him to show cause, why penalty be not imposed upon him, for non-payment of extension fee amounting to rs.8,695/-. petitioner replied to the notice saying that he did not receive any notice demanding extension fee and asking for details of such extension fee payable by him. respondent no.2, vide memorandum dated 17.12.1993 (annexure p-9).advised the petitioner to deposit an amount of virender singh adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 -3- rs.8,705/- towards extension fee and an amount of rs.871/- towards penalty, even though physical possession of the plot was yet to be delivered to the petitioner and the plot was yet to be demarcated. the situation forced the petitioner to file the instant writ petition on 13.01.1994 for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 17.12.1993 (annexure p-9) and issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver to him possession of a 10 marla (i.e.250 sq. yards) plot. the writ petition came up for hearing on 14.01.1994 and operation of order dated 17.12.1993 (annexure p-9) was stayed. filing of the writ petition and stay of operation of the order, annexure p-9, demanding extension fee and penalty from the petitioner, did not deter the respondents. respondent no.2 vide notice dated 31.10.2002 (annexure p-10) asked the petitioner to complete construction over the plot before 31.12.2002 and to deposit extension fee amounting to rs.85,152/- plus other dues or face resumption of the plot. then commenced a slew of show cause notices issued by the respondents. ultimately, vide order dated 31.04.2008 (annexure p-19) respondent no.2 ordered resumption of the plot and forfeiture of 10% of the total sale consideration plus interest and other dues, without even taking note of the circumstances enumerated by the petitioner while replying to above notices. appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 31.04.2008 (annexure p-19) was dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2008 (annexure p-23) and vide notice dated 12.11.2010 (annexure p-24) the petitioner was called upon to vacate the plot in question. virender singh adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 -4- in view of the developments subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has amended the petition with the leave of this court and has, thereby also challenged order of resumption dated 31.04.2008 (annexure p-19).order dated 16.09.2008 (annexure p-23) and notice dated 12.11.2010 (annexure p-24).in the counter, main plank of the respondents is that in the letter of allotment it was clearly stated that the price and area of the plot allotted to the petitioner were tentative and the same were subject to adjustment in accordance with the actual measurement at the time of delivery of possession; the petitioner was bound to complete the construction within two years from the date of delivery of possession of the plot, which was delivered to him on 01.02.1989 and then on 04.06.1990; and as per policy of the huda circulated vide memorandum not ai(d)2007/1157-78 dated 02.04.2007 the petitioner was to submit building plan for approval on or before 30.06.2007 and to obtain completion certificate uptil 31.12.2007 after completing the construction. but the petitioner failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period. it is also stated in the counter that the petitioner was legally and contractually bound to pay the enhanced price of the plot and order of stay being with regard to demand of enhanced price only there was no bar to initiate proceedings for resumption of the plot in question. we have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. facts are not much in dispute. it is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner had applied for and was allotted a plot measuring 10 marlas virender singh adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 -5- or say 250 sq. yards but at the time of delivery of possession the plot was found to measuring 213.33 sq. yards and the petitioner took over possession of the plot without prejudice to his legal rights. it is also not in dispute that immediately after receipt of notice dated 17.12.1993 (annexure p-9) demanding extension fee and penalty, the petitioner approached this court with a prayer that the notice dated 17.12.1993 (annexure p-9) be quashed and the respondents be directed to deliver to him possession of a plot measuring 10 marlas or say 250 sq. yards and this court, vide order dated 14.01.1994, no doubt stayed the operation of order dated 17.12.1993 (annexure p-9) but, indisputably, prayer of the petitioner for possession of a plot measuring 10 marlas (250 sq. yards) remained pending consideration before this court whereas the order dated 31.04.2008 (annexure p-19) ordering resumption of the plot and forfeiture of 10% of the total sale consideration, interest and other dues, was passed arbitrarily by the 2nd respondent. this, in our considered opinion, was an effort to over-reach the jurisdiction of this court. the appellate authority, while dealing with the appeal filed by the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order of the 2nd respondent, perhaps, could rectify the wrong committed by the 2nd respondent, however, a perusal of order dated 16.09.2008 (annexure p-23) passed by the appellate authority reveals that pendency of the instant writ petition was brought to its notice but it did not think it necessary to ponder upon the factum of pendency of prayer of the petitioner for delivery of possession of a 250 sq. yards plot, before this court. the order of resumption and the order of the appellate authority, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain. virender singh adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 -6- it is contended on behalf of the respondents that it was clearly stipulated in the letter of allotment dated 21.04.1981 (annexure p-1) that the area and price of the plot were tentative and both were subject to adjustment in accordance with actual measurement at the time of delivery of possession, and, thus, the petitioner's objection either with regard to the area or with regard to demand of additional price is meaningless and he was bound to complete the construction within two years from the date of delivery of possession of the plot to him on 04.06.1990 or uptil 31.12.2007 as per stipulation vide condition no.18 of the letter of allotment. but as the petitioner has failed to do so, the order of resumption and the appellate order cannot be faulted. according to the learned counsel for the respondents the ground put forth by the petitioner is artificial and is liable to be rejected. no doubt the price and area of the plot were tentative and subject to adjustment at the time of delivery of possession of plot but the respondents under the grab of such a stipulation could not reduce area of the plot so as to render it unsuitable for the needs of the allottee, who had, in fact, opted for a 10 marla (250 sq. yards) plot keeping in view his needs, and that too after accepting the entire sale price in respect of a plot measuring 250 sq. yards. were it that during measurement or demarcation of area of the plot was found to be more or less than the assured area, say to the extent of 5 to 10%, it, perhaps, could be said to be an adjustment but giving possession of a plot measuring 213.33 sq. yards instead of 250 sq. yards cannot be said to be an adjustment by any means. be that as it may, the fact remains that possession of 213.33 sq. virender singh adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 -7- yards plot was not accepted by the petitioner without reservation and he, in fact, had challenged the action of the respondents in this regard before this court and that being so delivery of possession by way of certificate of possession dated 01.02.1989 (annexure p-3) of a plot measuring 160 sq. yards and the other certificate dated 04.06.1990 (annexure p-6).thereby delivering possessing of 213.33 sq. yards could not clothe the respondents with a power to ask for extension fee and then to resume the plot on the pretext that construction was not completed within two years from the date of delivery of possession, because delivery of possession vide aforesaid certificates was rendered inconsequential in view of what has been stated here-in-before. it is appropriate to point out here that the huda has issued a notification dated 12.04.2013, whereby the upper time limit within which period an allottee is required to complete the minimum required construction, has been done away with and in clause (vi).the policy lays down that it shall be applicable to all the cases where order of resumption has been passed on account of non-construction within the prescribed period and litigation with regard to the resumption is pending before any forum. the policy also mandates that in such cases the estate officer shall inform the court/authority before which the litigation of the former allottees is pending against the order of resumption, with a request to dispose of the litigation in terms of that policy. it may also be relevant to refer here to an order dated 16.07.2013 passed by this court in cwp no.15746 of 2012, 'swaran rani versus haryana urban development authority, panchkula and others', wherein, the plot was resumed on account of non-completion of construction within the prescribed virender singh adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 -8- period and the order of resumption was challenged before this court. in view of the policy dated 12.04.2013, the writ petition was disposed of “with a direction to respondent no.3 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the said policy and regularize her (petitioner's) case by charging the extension fee according to the said policy.” nothing to the contrary has been shown during the cours.of hearing. in view of the circumstances enumerated here-in-above, the petitioner is entitled to a plot measuring 250 sq. yards in lieu of the plot already allotted to him, i.e., plot no.1776, sector-8, faridabad but keeping in view the fact that the aforesaid plot was allotted to the petitioner as far back as in the year 1981 and the dream to construct his house thereon had been eluding the petitioner all these years.the petitioner has reconciled with the situation and has opted to retain plot no.1776, sector-8, faridabad, as allotment of an alternative plot at this stage, i.e., after lapse of 32 years.may visit him with further delay and other unforeseen complications. consequently, we accept the writ petition, quash orders dated 17.12.1993 (annexure p-9) asking the petitioner to pay extension fee and penalty, order dated 31.04.2008 (annexure p-19) ordering resumption of the plot and forfeiture of 10% of the total sale consideration, interest and other dues and order dated 16.09.2008 (annexure p-23) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner challenging order of resumption as also the notice dated 12.11.2010 (annexure p-24) asking the petitioner to vacate the plot in question. the petitioner shall submit the building plan for approval within virender singh adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.598 of 1994 -9- one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall complete construction within two years from the date of communication of approval of the building plan to him. we are informed that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of rs.46,468/- towards excess payment and interest etc.this amount shall be refunded by the respondents to the petitioner, forthwith. no costs. (satish kumar mittal) (mahavir s. chauhan) judge judge 05 09.2013 adhikari virender singh adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 Date of Decision :

05. 09.2013 Surinder Kumar Gupta ....Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate, for the respondents.

MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN, J.

Responding to an official circular inviting applications from employees of the Government of Haryana, the petitioner, an employee of department of Excise and Taxation, Haryana, applied for a 10 marla (or say 250 Sq.

Yards) plot in Sector 8, Faridabad, by enclosing with his application a demand draft of Rs.1597.50/- towards 10% of the price of the plot.

The petitioner felt himself to be lucky on receipt of letter of allotment dated 21.04.1981 (Annexure P-1) with respect to allotment of a plot measuring 30' X 75.(250 Sq.

Yards) bearing plot No.1776, Sector-8, Faridabad, for a tentative price of Rs.15,975/-.

As directed, petitioner paid another amount of Rs.2,396.25/- to make it, together with the amount of Rs.1,597.50/- already deposited, 25% of the total sale consideration.

The petitioner, however, opted Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 -2- to pay the remainder (75%) with interest in six equated annual instalments, which he paid as per schedule of payment given in the letter of allotment.

The petitioner also paid an amount of Rs.3,500/- demanded by the respondents vide letter dated 02.10.1981 (Annexure P-2).on account of enhancement of compensation of land by the court under Land Acquisition Act.

Petitioner visited office of respondent No.2 to take possession of the plot as he intended to raise construction but, to his utter dismay and astonishment, he was given paper possession, vide certificate dated 01.02.1989 (Annexure P-3).of a plot measuring 60' X 24', or say 160 Sq.

Yards, which he took without prejudice to his rights.

Petitioner then served upon the respondents a legal notice dated 06/07.06.1989, which was followed by a detailed representation dated 30.10.1989 (Annexure P-4).asserting his demand for delivery of possession of 250 Sq.

Yards plot.

The second respondent ultimately responded and vide possession certificate dated 04.06.1990 (Annexure P-6) delivered paper possession of the plot, this time measuring 60' X 32.or say 213.33 Sq.

Yards, which the petitioner accepted under protest.

The petitioner was still struggling hard to reconcile with the unfortunate and unfavourable circumstances when he received another jolt on receipt of a notice dated 09.11.1993 (Annexure P-7) asking him to show cause, why penalty be not imposed upon him, for non-payment of extension fee amounting to Rs.8,695/-.

Petitioner replied to the notice saying that he did not receive any notice demanding extension fee and asking for details of such extension fee payable by him.

Respondent No.2, vide memorandum dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure P-9).advised the petitioner to deposit an amount of Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 -3- Rs.8,705/- towards extension fee and an amount of Rs.871/- towards penalty, even though physical possession of the plot was yet to be delivered to the petitioner and the plot was yet to be demarcated.

The situation forced the petitioner to file the instant writ petition on 13.01.1994 for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure P-9) and issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver to him possession of a 10 marla (i.e.250 Sq.

Yards) plot.

The writ petition came up for hearing on 14.01.1994 and operation of order dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure P-9) was stayed.

Filing of the writ petition and stay of operation of the order, Annexure P-9, demanding extension fee and penalty from the petitioner, did not deter the respondents.

Respondent No.2 vide notice dated 31.10.2002 (Annexure P-10) asked the petitioner to complete construction over the plot before 31.12.2002 and to deposit extension fee amounting to Rs.85,152/- plus other dues or face resumption of the plot.

Then commenced a slew of show cause notices issued by the respondents.

Ultimately, vide order dated 31.04.2008 (Annexure P-19) respondent No.2 ordered resumption of the plot and forfeiture of 10% of the total sale consideration plus interest and other dues, without even taking note of the circumstances enumerated by the petitioner while replying to above notices.

Appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 31.04.2008 (Annexure P-19) was dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-23) and vide notice dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P-24) the petitioner was called upon to vacate the plot in question.

Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 -4- In view of the developments subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has amended the petition with the leave of this Court and has, thereby also challenged order of resumption dated 31.04.2008 (Annexure P-19).order dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-23) and notice dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P-24).In the counter, main plank of the respondents is that in the letter of allotment it was clearly stated that the price and area of the plot allotted to the petitioner were tentative and the same were subject to adjustment in accordance with the actual measurement at the time of delivery of possession; the petitioner was bound to complete the construction within two years from the date of delivery of possession of the plot, which was delivered to him on 01.02.1989 and then on 04.06.1990; and as per policy of the HUDA circulated vide memorandum not AI(D)2007/1157-78 dated 02.04.2007 the petitioner was to submit building plan for approval on or before 30.06.2007 and to obtain completion certificate uptil 31.12.2007 after completing the construction.

But the petitioner failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period.

It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner was legally and contractually bound to pay the enhanced price of the plot and order of stay being with regard to demand of enhanced price only there was no bar to initiate proceedings for resumption of the plot in question.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

Facts are not much in dispute.

It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner had applied for and was allotted a plot measuring 10 marlas Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 -5- or say 250 Sq.

yards but at the time of delivery of possession the plot was found to measuring 213.33 Sq.

Yards and the petitioner took over possession of the plot without prejudice to his legal rights.

It is also not in dispute that immediately after receipt of notice dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure P-9) demanding extension fee and penalty, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer that the notice dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure P-9) be quashed and the respondents be directed to deliver to him possession of a plot measuring 10 marlas or say 250 Sq.

Yards and this Court, vide order dated 14.01.1994, no doubt stayed the operation of order dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure P-9) but, indisputably, prayer of the petitioner for possession of a plot measuring 10 marlas (250 Sq.

Yards) remained pending consideration before this Court whereas the order dated 31.04.2008 (Annexure P-19) ordering resumption of the plot and forfeiture of 10% of the total sale consideration, interest and other dues, was passed arbitrarily by the 2nd respondent.

This, in our considered opinion, was an effort to over-reach the jurisdiction of this Court.

The appellate authority, while dealing with the appeal filed by the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order of the 2nd respondent, perhaps, could rectify the wrong committed by the 2nd respondent, however, a perusal of order dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-23) passed by the appellate authority reveals that pendency of the instant writ petition was brought to its notice but it did not think it necessary to ponder upon the factum of pendency of prayer of the petitioner for delivery of possession of a 250 Sq.

Yards plot, before this Court.

The order of resumption and the order of the appellate authority, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain.

Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 -6- It is contended on behalf of the respondents that it was clearly stipulated in the letter of allotment dated 21.04.1981 (Annexure P-1) that the area and price of the plot were tentative and both were subject to adjustment in accordance with actual measurement at the time of delivery of possession, and, thus, the petitioner's objection either with regard to the area or with regard to demand of additional price is meaningless and he was bound to complete the construction within two years from the date of delivery of possession of the plot to him on 04.06.1990 or uptil 31.12.2007 as per stipulation vide condition No.18 of the letter of allotment.

But as the petitioner has failed to do so, the order of resumption and the appellate order cannot be faulted.

According to the learned counsel for the respondents the ground put forth by the petitioner is artificial and is liable to be rejected.

No doubt the price and area of the plot were tentative and subject to adjustment at the time of delivery of possession of plot but the respondents under the grab of such a stipulation could not reduce area of the plot so as to render it unsuitable for the needs of the allottee, who had, in fact, opted for a 10 marla (250 Sq.

Yards) plot keeping in view his needs, and that too after accepting the entire sale price in respect of a plot measuring 250 Sq.

Yards.

Were it that during measurement or demarcation of area of the plot was found to be more or less than the assured area, say to the extent of 5 to 10%, it, perhaps, could be said to be an adjustment but giving possession of a plot measuring 213.33 Sq.

Yards instead of 250 Sq.

Yards cannot be said to be an adjustment by any means.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possession of 213.33 Sq.

Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 -7- Yards plot was not accepted by the petitioner without reservation and he, in fact, had challenged the action of the respondents in this regard before this Court and that being so delivery of possession by way of certificate of possession dated 01.02.1989 (Annexure P-3) of a plot measuring 160 Sq.

Yards and the other certificate dated 04.06.1990 (Annexure P-6).thereby delivering possessing of 213.33 Sq.

Yards could not clothe the respondents with a power to ask for extension fee and then to resume the plot on the pretext that construction was not completed within two years from the date of delivery of possession, because delivery of possession vide aforesaid certificates was rendered inconsequential in view of what has been stated here-in-before.

It is appropriate to point out here that the HUDA has issued a notification dated 12.04.2013, whereby the upper time limit within which period an allottee is required to complete the minimum required construction, has been done away with and in clause (vi).the policy lays down that it shall be applicable to all the cases where order of resumption has been passed on account of non-construction within the prescribed period and litigation with regard to the resumption is pending before any forum.

The policy also mandates that in such cases the Estate Officer shall inform the Court/Authority before which the litigation of the former allottees is pending against the order of resumption, with a request to dispose of the litigation in terms of that policy.

It may also be relevant to refer here to an order dated 16.07.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.15746 of 2012, 'Swaran Rani versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others', wherein, the plot was resumed on account of non-completion of construction within the prescribed Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 -8- period and the order of resumption was challenged before this Court.

In view of the policy dated 12.04.2013, the writ petition was disposed of “with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the said policy and regularize her (petitioner's) case by charging the extension fee according to the said policy.”

Nothing to the contrary has been shown during the couRs.of hearing.

In view of the circumstances enumerated here-in-above, the petitioner is entitled to a plot measuring 250 Sq.

Yards in lieu of the plot already allotted to him, i.e., plot No.1776, Sector-8, Faridabad but keeping in view the fact that the aforesaid plot was allotted to the petitioner as far back as in the year 1981 and the dream to construct his house thereon had been eluding the petitioner all these yeaRs.the petitioner has reconciled with the situation and has opted to retain plot No.1776, Sector-8, Faridabad, as allotment of an alternative plot at this stage, i.e., after lapse of 32 yeaRs.may visit him with further delay and other unforeseen complications.

Consequently, we accept the writ petition, quash orders dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure P-9) asking the petitioner to pay extension fee and penalty, order dated 31.04.2008 (Annexure P-19) ordering resumption of the plot and forfeiture of 10% of the total sale consideration, interest and other dues and order dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-23) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner challenging order of resumption as also the notice dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P-24) asking the petitioner to vacate the plot in question.

The petitioner shall submit the building plan for approval within Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.598 of 1994 -9- one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall complete construction within two years from the date of communication of approval of the building plan to him.

We are informed that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs.46,468/- towards excess payment and interest etc.This amount shall be refunded by the respondents to the petitioner, forthwith.

No costs.

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN) JUDGE JUDGE 05 09.2013 adhikari Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.18 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh