The court emphasized the importance of valid and complete building plans, the communication of decisions by the Competent Authority, and the applicability of previous court decisions to determine the petitioner's liability for non-construction charges/extension fee.

Surya Kant, J.

Notwithstanding the chequered history of litigation, the only issue that survives for consideration pertains to the petitioner's liability to pay non-construction charges-cum-extension fee for the period spanning from 1988 to 2000 and again from the year 2001 to 2008.

2. The facts may be noticed briefly. Plot No. 105, Phase-2, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar Mohali was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 2.7.1971 (Annexure P-1), clause 6 whereof on translation reads as follows:-

“6. After getting the site plan sanctioned from the competent authority, the construction shall be completed within 3 years from the date of issuance of the sanctioned plan.”

3. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not interested in constructing the house, therefore, he did not submit or got the building plan sanctioned and failed to raise construction within three years from the date of allotment. The case of the petitioner on the other hand was that the possession of the plot was not handed over to him for a period of 7 long years after the allotment though he had deposited the entire sale consideration. No construction indeed can be raised unless possession of the plot is handed over to the allottee.

4. Since the respondent-Authority started levying non-construction charges/extension fee from January, 1988 onwards due to non-construction of the house to which the petitioner objected to, inter alia, on the grounds that (a) no such condition was stipulated in the allotment letter dated 2.7.1971 (Annexure P-1); (b) the policy instructions for the levy of non-construction charges were issued subsequently and would not apply to the allotments already made; (c) the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development (General) Rules, 1995 etc. also came into force prospectively much after the subject allotment; and that (d) the non-construction charges were not leviable also in view of the two decisions of this Court in CWP No. 13648 of 1998, (Tehal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) and CWP No. 18986 of 2001, (Sant Kaur Jabbi and others Vs. State of Punjab).

5. It was in this backdrop that on 9.12.2010, this Court directed the Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA to re-consider the petitioner's liability towards non-construction charges/extension fee, especially in the light of the above cited decisions as also keeping in view the terms and conditions of allotment.

6. Pursuant to those directions GMADA has passed an order dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure P-23) which is also impugned before us by amending the writ petition. However, before we advert to the legality of order dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure P-23), some more facts relevant to resolve the controversy may also be noticed.

7. The petitioner had submitted the building plan on 3.5.2000 but no formal communication regarding the sanctioning or rejecting that building plan was ever sent or received by him. It was on 9.4.2008 that the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 1,88,260/- as non-construction fee to enable the Authority to sanction the building plan. The petitioner deposited the said amount under protest and it appears that the authorities subsequently modified the said order holding that “the petitioner was liable to pay the non-construction fee to the tune of Rs. 7,63,581/- up to 31.12.2007.”

8. Thus, in the light of the order passed by this Court on 9.12.2010, directing the GMADA to reconsider the levy of extension fee, the Authorities were required to determine:-

(i) Whether the petitioner was liable to pay non-construction fee for the period from 1988 to 2000?

(ii) Whether the petitioner was liable to pay extension fee for the additional period from 2001 to 31.12.2007?

(iii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to be exempted from payment of the said fee in the light of the decisions of this Court in Tehal Singh and Sant Kaur Jabbi's cases (supra) and as per the terms and conditions of allotment?

9. The respondents have vide order dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure P-23) reite