“ 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that it is admitted fact that previously, the plot in question was allotted to Pushpinder Kumar, father of respondent and after his death on 14.12.1987, the plot was allotted to the respondent being legal heir of Pushpinder Kumar, vide allotment letter Ex.P7 dated 07.09.2000. However, one letter Ex.P8 dated 30.01.2003 was then sent to the respondent directing him to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,58,910/- on or before 05.02.2003. Whereas, it is the case of the appellant that this amount was not deposited by the respondent. However, respondent has placed on record copies of two drafts dated 05.02.2003 Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 regarding payment of the total amount of Rs.3,58,910/-. Whereas, respondent alleged that the appellant refused to accept this amount and threatened to cancel the plot. But appellant alleged that no payment was made so, the cancellation was automatic. However, before cancelling the plot, appellant was supposed to serve a notice giving him opportunity of being heard, but no such notice was served. Rather, appellant has stated that the plot in dispute allotted in the name of respondent is not being cancelled and only interest and other charges are to be paid by the respondent. This fact has not been controverted even during course of arguments by the appellant. Now, there is only dispute with regard to charging of interest or penalty on the delayed payment.
