The demand for extension fee and non-construction charges must be in accordance with the legal provisions and cannot be enforced through threat or duress.

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It’s an appeal against the order dated 3.3.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter called the District Forum).

2. The main case of the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was that the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) had illegally, forcibly and arbitrarily got deposited Rs. 26,500/- and Rs. 43,500/- from her as non-construction charges under the threat of cancellation of allotment of her plot.

3. It’s undisputed that Plot No. 70 was allotted to the complainant on 30.3.1994 vide allotment letter Ex. R-4 by Punjab Housing Development Board and in Para No. 9 of the said allotment, the rates for extension fee had been given in case any allottee failed to construct the building on the plot within three years. The allotment was made subject to the provisions of the Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 and the policies framed by the Board from time to time. The opposite party-PUDA came into existence after enactment of Punjab Regional Town Planning & Development Act, 1995. The opposite party charged extension fee from the complainant on the basis of letter dated 15.1.1998 (Ex. R-3). The aforesaid letter was challenged in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court by Tehal Singh in Civil Writ Petition No. 13648 of 1998 mainly on the ground that after four years of issuance of allotment letter dated 7.3.1994, the petitioner could not be asked to pay extension fee on the basis of letter dated 15.1.1998 (now Ex. R-3 in the case of the complainant) and that the demand made was ultra-vires of the provisions of the Punjab Regional & Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court after hearing the opposite party had held that the demand of enhanced extension fee was ultra-vires to the provisions of the 1995 Act read with the 1995 Rules and had quashed the impugned notices. The District Forum has rightly stated in its order that it could not be explained as to why the complainant was asked to pay extension fee on the basis of letter dated 15.1.1998 (Ex. R-3) when the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had declared the notice issued on the basis of aforesaid letter dated 15.1.1998 (Ex. R-3) as illegal and had quashed the same. As stated above, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had also held that the demand of enhanced extension fee was ultra vires to the provisions of the 1995 Act read with the 1995 Rules. District Forum has rightly held that the case in the writ petition and the facts of the case in hand were similar. The plot in the case of the complainant was also allotted in the year 1994 before the enactment of the 1995 Act. It was, thus, rightly held by the District Forum that raising of the demand from the complainant for extension of fee on the basis of letter dated 15.1.1998 (Ex. R-3) was not proper on the part of the opposite party.

4. District Forum has also negatived the contention of the opposite party that the complainant had paid the non-construction charges voluntarily and without any protest. The complainant had vide letters dated 3.2.2000 (Ex. C-4) and 7.3.2000 (Ex. C-6) stated that the amount was paid under threat and due to use of coercive methods by the opposite party. District Forum has rightly held that the factual position that the complainant had paid the amount under threat and duress further stood corroborated from the contents of Para No. 5 of the written reply filed by the opposite party. It is mentioned in the relevant para as under :

“It is added that in case the complainant makes any default in payment of non-construction charges, then her allotment is liable to be cancelled according to the terms of the allotment.”

Obviously then the complainant had to make the payment to avoid cancellation of her allotment. The District Forum has further held that non-construction charges could not be charged without providing the promised facilities to th