SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

H.S.BRAR, C.P.BUDHIRAJA
P. U. D. A. – Appellant
Versus
MALVINDER KAUR – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. B.S. Taunque, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

ORDER

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 lette








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top