PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs PUNJAB KHAPATKAR SANGH

THIS is an appeal by PUDA against the order dated 5.12.2000 of District Forum, Ludhiana by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed.

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal may be noticed. The complainant had purchased a plot measuring 400 sq. yards in September, 1996 from an original allottee who was allotted the plot in the year 1985. PUDA vide letter dated 22.11.1999 demanded an amount of Rs. 70,592 as non -construction charges. This demand was challenged on the ground that as per the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development (General) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 1995 Rules) framed under Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter called the 1995 Act), for the first three years of allotment, no non -construction charges are leviable. In the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th year, the non -construction charges are leviable on a plot holder @ Rs. 1.50, Rs. 2.00, Rs. 2.50, Rs. 4.50 and Rs. 6.00 per sq. metre respectively. Prior to the aforesaid rules, the conditions of allotment were regulated by the conditions contained in the allotment letter. It is not disputed before us that till the year 1996 when the present complainant purchased the plot, the original allottee had deposited the non -construction charges to PUDA. The dispute in the present case is regarding the non -construction charges w.e.f. 1997 to 1999. It is not disputed that under the rules aforesaid, rates were mentioned for levying non -construction charges. The District Forum mentioning a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that not more than Rs. 16.50 per sq. metre were chargeable as non -construction charges.

IT may be observed here that PUDA while opposing the complaint before the District Forum, in paragraphs 5 and 6 on merits, averred as under: ''5. Contents of para 5 are wrong. By the latest policy of PUDA the rate of Non -construction Charges has been changed and the same are being demanded correctly from the complainant(s). 6. Contents of para 6 are wrong. The Non -construction Charges demanded by the respondent are strictly in accordance with the latest policy of the Deptt.''

IT will be apparent from the reply given by PUDA above that no specific was made to any policy decision which might have been taken by PUDA for changing that rate of non -construction charges. With this appeal, the appellant has attached Annexures A -4 and A -5 dated 3.12.1996 and 18.2.1997 respectively in which it is stated that the Finance Committee has enhanced the rates of non -construction charges. In the first letter, it is mentioned that upto 30.6.1997, the extension charges would be @ Rs. 20 per sq. metre and in the later letter dated 18.2.1997, it is mentioned that for extension beyond 30.6.1997, the non -construction charges leviable would be Rs. 30, Rs. 40, Rs. 50, Rs. 60 and Rs. 70 for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th year respectively in case of residential plots.

IT is not disputed before us that a similar policy decision was taken by PUDA on 15.1.1998 and the same was made the subject matter of challenge in the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 13648 of 1998 Tehal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, which was decided on 4.5.1999 striking down the policy decision issued by the respondent on 15.1.1998 as ultra vires of 1995 Act and Rules. The policy decision to which reference has been made in appeal, Annexures A -4 and A -5, are similar policy decisions as was of dated 15.1.1998. In view of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Tehal Singhs case (supra) striking down exactly similar policy decision, we are of the view that these decisions are nullity as these are against the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court as also against the 1995 Rules.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant then argued that in view of the fact that the instructions issued by the aforesaid policy decisions, Annexures A -4 and A -5 with this appeal, have not been made the subject matter of challenge, District Forum or for that matter this Commission has no jurisdiction to declare policy decisions ultra vires. Apart from the fact that in the written statement, there was no reference to any specific policy decision which could be made the subject matter of challenge by the complainant, we are of the view that we are not holding these instructions to be invalid on our own. We are just applying the law laid down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court which stood the test upto Apex Court that such policy decisions are ultra vires of 1995 Act and Rules. Otherwise also, as an institution after the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Tehal Singhs case (supra), the PUDA should have been well advised to suo motu withdraw the instructions Annexures A -4 and A -5 with this appeal.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum which we uphold. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.