8.3.2016 (Annexure P-6), respondent No.4 directed the Executive Engineer to shift the sewer line who vide letter dated 28.9.2016 (Annexure P-7) informed respondent No.4 that the sewer line and manhole had been shifted. The petitioners had got the site plan sanctioned on 6.5.2013. They requested respondents No.3 and 4 to waive off the extension fees for the period from 2013 to 2016 as they could not start construction work at the site due to delay in shifting the sewer line and manhole. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure P-8) asked respondent No.3 as to whether offer of possession can be considered as 28.9.2016, i.e. date of shifting of manhole over the plot of the petitioners and the decision regarding charging of extension fee from the petitioners. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 10.1.2017 (Annexure P-9) written to respondent No.4 refused to change the date for offer of possession of the actual possession and asked for a report as to why so much time was taken in shifting the manhole and the sewer line. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 23.2.2017 (Annexure P-10) informed petitioner No.1 that the sewer line on the plot in question had been shifted. The petitioners paid the extension fee for nonconstruction of house at the site under protest. Further, vide certificate dated 28.2.2017 (Annexure P-11) issued to petitioner No.1, it was mentioned that the construction of the plot in question had been completed upto plinth level and measurement had been checked at the site and found as per demarcation and zoning plan of the sector and the revised building was also approved. As per the photograph dated 23.7.2013 (Annexure P-12), there was a manhole in the plot of the petitioners which was shifted in the year 2016 as is clear from the photograph (Annexure P-13). Accordingly, the petitioners made a representation dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure P-14) to
