The court held that a trust must provide basic amenities if development charges are collected, and cannot penalize for construction delays caused by their failure to provide necessary infrastructure.

Order

17/01/2024

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the Permanent Lok-Adalat, Udaipur in Case No.177/2017 whereby the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 22-B of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 was partly allowed.

Briefly the facts noted in the writ petition are that the sole respondent filed an application under section 22(B) of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 against the present petitioner. The petitioner herein filed reply to the application preferred by the respondent before the Permanent Lok-Adalat. After hearing the counsel for the parties, learned Permanent Lok-Adalat, Udaipur decided the application filed by the sole respondent vide its order dated 24.07.2019 whereby it was held that the present petitioner shall waive the period of three years for construction of house by the respondent as the approach road in the subject location was not constructed and therefore, the petitioner trust was not held entitled to levy any penalty upon the respondent for not completing the construction of her house within the stipulated period of three years. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner trust preferred the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Permanent Lok-Adalat are not just, proper and correct as the petitioner is not under an obligation to provide the approach road for a single house for which Patta was issued to the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that in the close proximity of the house of the respondent, certain other plots are also located and once, the occupants of these plots apply for conversion of their land from agriculture to non-agriculture after depositing the amount due, the work of construction of approach road will be undertaken. Learned counsel further submits that the application filed by the respondent was without any justification as the petitioner has not issued any notice for payment of any penalty to the petitioner for not constructing her house within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Patta. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the Permanent Lok-Adalat, Udaipur may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that against the Patta issued by the petitioner, the respondent has paid development charges and if the approach road is not provided, it would not be possible for her to reach her plot and undertake the construction activities. He submits that if the development charges have been taken by the petitioner, they are under an obligation to provide all basic amenities including the approach road and unless the same are provided, the clause for construction of house to be completed within a period of three years cannot be invoked and thereby no penalty can be imposed upon the respondent for not completing the construction within a period of three years of issuance of the Patta. Learned counsel submits that the Permanent Lok-Adalat, Udaipur has not committed any illegality while passing the order dated 24.07.2019 and therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this court.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.

The admitted facts in the present case are that the respondent was issued Patta by the petitioner for construction of a residential house by the respondent. In the Patta issued by the petitioner, a condition was imposed whereby the petitioner was required to complete construction of her residential premises within a period of three years, if the same is not done then the petitioner was well within its right to impose a penalty. The petitioner also took development charges from the respondent against issuance of the Patta. Since, the petitioner has not constructed the approach road, there