1. The petitioners (Rajeev Rana and Sunil Kumar Rana) pray for the issuance of a writ of certiorari / mandamus declaring the action of the respondent - authorities in charging extension fee as a condition precedent for sanctioning the building plans with respect to residential site No.1436, Sector 40 - B, Chandigarh as illegal and arbitrary and for quashing the impugned letter / order dated 16.01.2014 (Annexure P - 11) vide which the request for sanction of building plans was rejected.

2. The case set out by the petitioners is that the petitioners and respondent No.4 (Deepak Kumar) purchased residential site No.1436, Sector 40 - B, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed site') in an open auction held on 23.10.2008 for a consideration of Rs.1,98,00,000/-. On acceptance of the highest bid, a sum of Rs.49,50,000/- was deposited towards 25% of the total premium / price. An agreement was also executed wherein it was agreed that the balance 75% of the premium would be deposited within 90 days. Accordingly, the balance premium of Rs.1,48,50,000/- was also deposited. In view thereof, letter of allotment dated 23.01.2009 (Annexure P - 2) was issued.

3. As per condition No.10 of the allotment letter, a conveyance deed had to be executed within 30 days from the issuance thereof. Further, as per condition No.11, possession of the disputed site was to be handed over within a period of 15 days from the date of execution and registration of the conveyance deed. As per Clause 14, the construction of the building had to be completed within 03 years from the date of delivery of possession, failing which, an allottee would have 05 more years to complete the construction on payment of extension fee as specified in the allotment letter.

4. Conveyance deed was executed on 27.02.2009 (Annexure P - 3) and was registered on 05.03.2009. As per condition No.4 of the conveyance deed, the liability to pay any kind of dues was joint and several of the allottees.

5. Despite the execution of the conveyance deed, possession was not handed over to the allottees. Some disputes also arose between the petitioners and respondent No.4. It has been averred that since the correspondence address in the records of the official respondents was that of respondent No.4, he stopped cooperating with the petitioners. Accordingly, an application dated 14.03.2012 (Annexure P - 4) was submitted by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in reply to which, the petitioners were told that possession letter dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P - 5) had been issued at the address of respondent No.4 i.e. Ward No.7, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

6. The petitioners then represented to respondents No.2 and 3 seeking possession of the disputed site but were told that the same would be handed over jointly to all allottees i.e. the petitioners and respondent No.4. A detailed representation (Annexure P - 6) was submitted apprising the respondents about the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.4. An application (Annexure P - 7) was also submitted for grant of permission to erect a building over the disputed site. The same was, however, returned vide memo dated 21.03.2012 (Annexure P - 8) on the ground that the building plans had to be signed by all owners. However, on account of the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.4, the said condition could not be complied with.

7. Under the circumstances, CWP No.21649 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners which was disposed of on 26.07.2013 (Annexure P - 1) with a direction to the official respondents that joint possession of the disputed site be given to the petitioners by specifically mentioned that the same would be considered joint possession of all three co - sharers and that before handing over the joint possession to the petitioners, it would be open for the official respondents to give notice to respondent No.4 as well.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, a communication dated