The judgment establishes the principle that the liability of allottees to pay instalments and non-construction fee is contingent upon the provision of basic amenities as per the terms of allotment.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. This order will dispose CWP Nos. 10809, 10826, 10991, 11232 of 2014, 13515, 13516, 6972, 6975, 6979, 6990, 6991, 7066, 7694, 13424, 13434, 13435, 13503, 13504, 13517, 13634, 14839, 14855, 14856 of 2015, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

2. For convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 10809 of 2014.

3. Challenge in the writ petition is to the award dated 9.7.2013 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as the Lok Adalat), allowing the petition filed by respondent no. 2.

4. Respondent no. 2 herein was allotted Plot No. 23, measuring 12' x 27.6" situated in New Grain and Cotton Market, N.G.M. Malekan, N.G.M. Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, vide allotment order No. Regd. 3451 dated 12.7.2006 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,10,000/-, being the highest bidder in auction sale. 25% of the bid money i.e. Rs. 2,52,500/- was to be deposited at the fall of the hammer. As per the terms of allotment letter, the allottee was to pay the balance 75% of the amount either within 30 days from the date of allotment or in six half yearly instalments with interest @ 15% per annum. Some of the instalments were paid by respondent no. 2, however, later on he stopped. The petitioners issued various demand notices for payment of the balance allotment money along with interest. Additional demand was also raised on account of non- construction fee. The same was challenged by respondent no. 2 before the Lok Adalat. Vide impugned award dated 9.7.2013, the claim of respondent no. 2 was allowed. The award has been impugned in the present petition.

5. In other connected petitions, though the awards passed by the Lok Adalat were on different dates but the applicants before the Lok Adalat and the legal issue was the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after respondent no. 2 was successful in the auction, allotment letter dated 12.7.2006 was issued in his favour in terms of which after adjusting the bid money paid at the time of auction, balance of Rs. 7,57,500/- was to deposited within 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter or in six half yearly instalments with interest @ 15% per annum. The total sale consideration was Rs. 10,10,000/-. On failure to pay the instalments, additional penal interest @ 4% compounded half yearly was also chargeable and on default in payment of two successive instalments, the plot and the building, if any constructed thereon, could be resumed. Possession of the plot was to be offered within 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter after providing basic facilities. The construction was to be completed within a period of two years from the date of offer of possession of plot, which could be extended for further period of three years on payment of prescribed fee. The possession of the plot was offered to respondent no. 2 vide communication dated 17.1.2007 but the allottee failed to take possession. Even despite grant of further opportunities, golden opportunity was granted to deposit the outstanding dues and complete construction after depositing the non- construction fee vide memo dated 1.4.2013 but the allottee failed to deposit the remaining allotment price with interest and non-construction fee. Respondent no. 2 filed a petition before the Lok Adalat.

7. The allottee in the case in hand had failed to pay the remaining instalments. In reply to the petition filed before the Lok Adalat, preliminary objection was taken regarding jurisdiction in terms of Section 22-A of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short, the Act). It was submitted that the Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction as the petitioner was not covered. Under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, even the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.

8. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, it was submitted that basic amenities have already been provided. Only one water