DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.22 of 14-01-2011 Decided on 15-07-2011
Archna Mittal, aged about 43 years, wife of Sh. Prem Mittal, Resident of House No.87, Green Avenue, Opposite Rose Garden, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Bathinda Development Authority, Bathinda through its Chief Administrator. Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.D.Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of plot No.16 measuring 500 Sq. yards situated in Model Town, Phase-III, Part-2, Bathinda and she applied for sanction of site plan for raising the construction over the same and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.18,000/- with the opposite party through Bank Draft which was duly received by them vide receipt No.1557 dated 05.07.2010. The complainant has alleged that at the time of allotment of plots, the opposite parties publically informed the general public that sewerage, roads and water pies will be constructed by them immediately at their own expenses. Without construction of road in front of the plot, no construction could be raised. The opposite parties are also duty bound to provide 40 feet metalled road in front of the plots. The complainant was/is ready with the requisite funds for raising construction over the said plot and that is why he applied for necessary sanction and made repeated requests to the opposite parties for sanction of the site plan but no intimation about its sanction has been given to the complainant. The Divisional Engineer of the opposite parties asked the opposite party No.2 that the road in front of plot of the complainant was incomplete and necessary steps for completing the same be made. The opposite party No.2 raised a demand of Rs.2,56,210/- from the complainant vide letter No.2596 dated 23.07.2010. The complainant has further alleged that she is not bound to pay the said demand on various grounds that the basic amenities are not provided on the spot; the deep trenches and pits are/were on the open in front of plot of the complainant which were not filled and due to trenches construction was not possible; 10' road is/was not made infront from the plot of the complainant. The complainant has written many letters to the opposite parties so she is/was helpless to make construction on the plot and the non construction charges cannot be charged. Thereafter, the complainant sent an application dated 19.07.2010 to the opposite party No.1 vide registered postal receipt No.2302 for sanction of site plan and construction of road in front of the plot. The complainant has further alleged that there is no delay to raise construction on his part but the laspes are on the part of the opposite parties as they have not raised construction of the metalled road in front of the house in question till date. The complainant is suffering huge monetary loss on account of increase in prices of construction material. The complainant again gave the reminders dated 25.08.2010 and 21.09.2010 to the opposite parties with a request to withdraw the said demand and to sanction site plan but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant was allotted residential plot No.16, measuring 500 Sq. Yds. in Phase-III, Part-II, Urban Estate, Bathinda. As per rules and regulations, the allottee is required to construct the house on the plot within 3 years from the allotment but no construction was raised on this plot and as such, numerous letters had been written to the complainant, asking her to raise the construction or deposit the extension fee for non-construction but neither the construction was raised nor the extension fee was deposited. The opposite parties have further pleaded that as per PUDA Act, the allottee is given the period of 3 years for construction and if, he/she does not raise the construction on the plot within 3 years, he/she can be granted a further extension of another 5 years on the payment of extension fee as prescribed under Section 13 of the PUDA Act. Despite passing of eight years, the allottee fails to raise construction then PUDA is empowered to resume the plot. Thereafter, the allottee is not entitled for any extension. On representations from various allottees, PUDA had been allowing the extension period subject to the allottees depositing the requisite extension fee which was decided in these circulars. Since, the extensions were allowed as per these circulars, as such, the PUDA was entitled to recover the amount of the extension fee on the basis of these circulars. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant was owner of plot No.16 measuring 500 Sq. yards situated in Model Town, Phase-III, Part-2, Bathinda. As per rules and regulations, the allottee is required to construct the house on the plot within 3 years from the allotment. The complainant has alleged that she had applied for sanction of site plan for raising the construction over the said plot and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.18,000/- with the opposite party vide Bank Draft, was duly received by the oposite parties vide receipt No.1557 dated 05.07.2010. She further alleged that at the time of allotment of plots, the opposite parties publically informed the general public that sewerage, roads and water pipes will be constructed by them immediately at their own expenses. The complainant has not started construction due to non construction of road in front of her plot as there were pits and stones and space kept for roads were not clear. The opposite parties have provided 40 feet metalled road in front of the plots. The complainant was/is ready to deposit the requisite funds for raising construction of the said plot and she applied for necessary sanction and made repeated requests to the opposite parties for the sanction of the site plan but no intimation about its sanction has been given to the complainant. On receipt of application for necessary sanction of the complainant, the Divisional Engineer of the opposite parties asked the opposite party No.2 that the road in front of plot of the complainant was incomplete and necessary steps for completing the same may be done. The opposite party No.2 raised a demand of Rs.2,56,210/- from the complainant vide letter No.2596 dated 23.07.2010. The complainant has challenged this amount on the ground i.e., the basic amenities are not provided on the spot; the deep trenches and pits are/were on the open in front of plot of the complainant which were not filled and due to trenches construction was not possible; 10 feet road is/was not made infront of the plot of the complainant despite her repeated requests. These were the reasons for the complainant for not raising the construction of the plot and as such the non construction charges cannot be charged. The complainant sent application dated 19.07.2010 to the opposite party No.1 vide registered postal receipt No.2302 for sanction of site plan and construction of road in front of the plot. On receiptof the above said letter dated 23.07.2010 from the opposite party No.2, the complainant again reiterated his stand but the opposite parties conveyed him that there is no delay on their part. The complainant again gave a reminder dated 25.08.2010 to the opposite party No.2. The complainant has to raise construction of her house as per rules and regulations within 3 years from the allotment. Howcver, no construction was raised on the plot, as such, numerous letters had been written to the complainant, asking her to raise the construction or deposit the extension fee for non-construction but neither the construction was raised nor the extension fee was deposited. The complainant had given an undertaking to the opposite parties that she is bound by the terms and condtions of the allotment letter but she did not raise construction and the plot is liable to be resumed on that ground. As per PUDA, the allottee is given the period of 3 years for construction and if, he/she does not construct within 3 years, he/she can be granted a further extension of another 5 years on the payment of extension fee as prescribed under Section 13 of the PUDA Act. 8 years have been elapsed, the allottee has failed to construct his plot. As such, the PUDA is empowered to resume the plot. Thereafter, the allottee is not entitled for any extension. On representations from various allottees, PUDA had been allowing the extension period subject to the allottees depositing the requisite extension fee which was decided in these circulars. Since, the extensions were allowed as per these circulars, as such, the PUDA was entitled to recover the amount of the extension fee on the basis of these circulars. As per rules, the sanction could not be granted till the complainant paid the outstanding amount of extention fee charges and she had been fuly informed regarding the same vide letter No.2596 dated 23.02.2010 which was calculated to Rs.2,56,210/-. As per clause 11 of the allotment letter, the complainant was required to complete the building within 3 yeas from the date of issue of allotment letter after getting plan of the proposed building, approved from the Estate Officer. In case of non construction on the plot on her own request, she may be allowed extension in time for the construction of the building on the payment of extension fee determined by PUDA from time to time. The Possession of the plot has been delivered to the complainant as per rules of the PUDA. 6. The complainant has himself placed on file Ex.C-10 which clearly shows that approximately 40 feet road is constructed whereas 10 feet road is unconstructed. This report has been duly given by the Sub-Divisional Engineer (C-1) of the BDA to the Estate Officer, BDA, Bathinda. The complainant has himself placed on file Ex.C-12 i.e. Information sought from BDA under RTI Act. The information is given by vide Ex.C-13 is read as under:- “With regard to the information of the abovesaid letter, the report of Sub Divisional Engineer (C-1) dated 21.04.2010 is sent as under:- (a) The date of calling Tender is 27.08.2010. (b) Photocopy of Agreement and its expenses on registary to the tune of Rs.98/- to be deposited. (c) Length of road is 83 feet. (d) The starting date of work is 01.10.2010 and the date of work finished was 30.11.2011 but according to allotment, the actual date of work finished is 24.04.2011. (e) The actual date of work finished is 24.04.2011 and estimate cost is of Rs.1,42,168/-.” 7. The terms and conditions of the allotment letter Ex.R-2, Clause 5 of Construction of Building is reproduced as under:- “(i) Construction of 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 concerned Estate Officer. (ii) Construction shall be carried out as per sanctioned building plans and as per the provisions of PUDA (Building) Rules, 1996 as amended from time to time.” And according to clause 6 of Extension Fee, which is reproduced as under:- “(i) If the construction on the plot is not completed within the time stipulated in para 5 above, extension in construction period would be granted subject to payment of Extension Fee, as may be determined from time to time. However, extension in period of completion of building shall be subject to the satisfaction of the Estate Officer that the failure to comlete the building within the stipulated period was due to a cause beyond the control of allottee. (ii) In case of non-payment or delayed payment of extension fee, in addition, penality at the following rates shall also be charged. Sr. No. Delayed Period Rate of Penalty 1. Upto one year 10% 2. Between 1-3 years 20% 3. Between 3-5 years 50% 4. Beyond 5 years 100%” 8. The complainant had agreed to all the terms and condtions of the opposite parties. A perusal of record placed on file shows that 40 feet road is constructed whereas 10 feet road is not constructed vide Ex.C10. The complainant has alleged that the basic amenities are not provided on the spot and no such evidence/document has been placed on file by the complainant to prove her version. 9. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concluds that there is 40 feet road constructed in front of the plot of the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 15.07.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member | 
