- (1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for quashing of orders dated 20.9.2011, 18.3.2014 and 10.2.2015. The petitioners having successfully participated in the auction for a commercial site bearing SCO no.4 Sector 69, measuring 242 sq. yards at Urban Estates SAS Nagar, Mohali were required to deposit 10% on the fall of the hammer and 15% within 30 days thereafter which they did. According to one of the terms of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners on 5.8.2008, construction of the plot was to be completed within 3 years from the date of issue of allotment letter after getting building plans duly sanctioned from GMADA. We may extract the condition below:- 5. Construction of Building i) Construction on plot shall be completed within a period of 3 years from the date of issue of allotment letter after getting the building plans duly sanctioned from the Estate Officer, GMADA."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent defaulted in providing the building plans in order to enable him to raise the construction and thus they represented on 10.11.2008 urging the authorities to issue the building plans which was followed up by another request on 13.1.2009. On 9.3.2009 they submitted a demand draft of Rs. 300/- as requisite fee for the building plans and soon thereafter on 20.3.2009 they asked for a refund of the amount that they had deposited (25% of the sale price) which was followed up by a legal notice and since the respondents failed to respond they filed a CWP no. 7103 of 2009 which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to look into the grievance and take a decision thereon. The respondents then passed an order dated 21.7.2009 by observing that there was no provision for surrender of the plot but if the petitioners desire, the amount of 10% would be forfeited in terms of Section 45 (3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This decision was taken in response to the legal notice submitted by the petitioners and it was also stipulated therein that the applicants deposited the requisite fee on 12.3.2009 and the drawings were issued to them on the same date which fact is seriously contested by the learned counsel for the petitioners with material on record that fee was deposited on 9.3.2009 but no building plans were ever prepared or submitted to them. We may at this stage observe that on this aspect there is a serious dispute between the parties where the petitioners assert that no building plans were sanctioned while the respondents assert that building plans were ready on 12.3.2009 in response to deposit of requisite fee of Rs. 300/- on 9.3.2009 and thus there being no delay on their part the respondents would be justified in resorting to the forfeiture of the amount, particularly when in June, 2009 the building plans were sent to the petitioners by speed post.
(3.) The order dated 21.7.2009 was challenged by the petitioners by way of another CWP no. 15850 of 2009 which was disposed of and the petitioners relegated to an alternate remedy of appeal which they availed of resulting in the order dated 6.1.2010 ordering the refund of the amount to the petitioners after deducting the requisite amount (i.e 10%) in terms of Section 45 (3) of the Act. The petitioners then impugned this order as well by way of revision where revisional authority held that petitioners were not at fault when the site was offered to be surrendered but no prejudice would be caused to the GMADA in accepting the surrendered site and thus reduced the 10% forfeiture amount to 5%. This order dated 20.9.2011 was challenged by way of CWP no. 4260 of 2012 but was withdrawn with liberty to approach the revisional authority to clarify the order whether 5% of the amount related to the deposit by the petitioners or did it pertain to 5% of the sale consideration. Pursuant to these directives, Annexure P-18 dated 18.3.2014 has been passed by the revisional authority rejecting the plea of the petitioners against which they filed a review petition which was also dismissed on 10.2.2015 (Annexure P- 20). This implies that 5% of the amount forfeited was to relate to the amount of the total consideration money, interest and other fees payable in respect of the plot.;