Accordingly, the Justice Demand Notice sent by you has been filed after due companysideration.
The petitioner did number have to go through any protracted litigation on that account.
Pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, the rate was reduced from Rs.3600/ to Rs.1400/ per square yard.
The judgment reads as follows We have heard the learned companynsel for the petitioner.
The order reads as follows To Col.
It may be necessary to refer to the bare facts.
Thereafter, the respondent contempt petitioner allottee Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.07.24 filed Civil Writ Petition No.2851 of 2005 for payment of 163307 IST Reason interest which has been disposed of by judgment dated 21st March, 2005.
Sd Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali.
During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, order dated 20th January,2006 was passed declining to grant interest saying that there was numberpolicy to make payment for interest.
Jagtar Singh Retd.
A companyy of the same is appended herewith as Annexure CR 1.
Subsequently, by means of another order dated 9.10.2006, the matter was adjourned to 7.12.2006 and the requisite affidavit was directed to be filed.
Disposed of.
/2006/1677 78 dated 20.01.2006 Subject Regarding allotment of Plot No.69, Sector 69, Mohali CWP No.2851 of 2005.
The respondent No.1 contempt petitioner allottee has approached the High Court with a grievance that the appellant Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority for short PUDA through its successor Greater Mohali Area Development Authority for short GMADA has charged excess rates for allotment of plots.
It appears that the High Court directed the PUDA to file an affidavit on the following terms.
D 89,D Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
Since there was numberresponse from the PUDA within the time stipulated by the High Court, the respondent allottee filed Contempt Petition No.1286 of 2005.
That it is number out of place to mention here that the decision to reduce the amount payable by the petitioner, from Rs.3600/ to Rs.1400/ was made by the authorities themselves on 24.4.2003, on a representation having been made by the petitioner on 15.03.2002 for being companysidered similarly as Subedar Anokh Singh in CWP No.11871 of 1997.
Accordingly, the amount of Rs.14,28,713/ was immediately refunded to the petitioner on 20.06.2003 by means of Cheque No.057376.
KURIAN, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7th December, 2006 passed in C.O.C.P.No.1286 of 2005.
