Haryana

Karnal

276/2014

Mohinder Singh S/o Sohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Estate Officer, Haryana Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Vineet Dogra

07 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                              Complaint No.276 of 2014

                                               Date of instt. 01.10.2014

                                                  Date of decision:07.09.2017

 

Mohinder Singh son of late Shri Sohan Singh, resident of SCF no.31, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

             

                                                                    ………….Complainant.     

                                   Versus

 

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                          

                                                        ………..Opposite Party.

 

       Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……. President.

               Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

             

 

 Present:Shri Vinod Dogra Adv. for complainant.

               Shri Chandbir Mandhan Adv. for opposite party.

 

 

ORDER:

 

              (Jagmal Singh President)

                    

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that Shri Deep Raman Singh and Smt. Mohinder Kaur were the owner of the house no.1389, Sector-6 Karnal and they executed a sale deed no.1095/1 dated 9.5.2008 in favour of the complainant by virtue of which he became the owner of the abovesaid house. At the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, the previous owners have raised the construction over ¼ share of the plot. Thereafter, complainant approached the opposite party and made written request dated 30.11.2009 and 16.6.2010 for transfer of the plot in question in his name and further to issue the occupation/completion certificate, but opposite party did not pay any heed to his request. The opposite party issued a letter no.66/8 dated 25.5.2011 by which they demanded Rs.85,187/- as extension fee. He was not liable to pay the said amount qua the constructed house. He served upon a legal notice dated 8.7.2011 by which he requested to transfer the plot in question in his name, to issue the occupation/completion certificate and withdraw the notice dated 9.5.2008. Thereafter, due to compelling circumstances, he deposited Rs.85,187/- as extension fee with the opposite party, but opposite party failed to issue the occupation/completion certificate. Opposite party issued a letters dated 19.1.2012 and 22.7.2014 directing the complainant to submit the required documents for obtaining the occupation/ completion certificate. The opposite party said that the plot as partly construction and compelled him to get executed and registered a supplementary sale deed. One side it was admitted by the opposite party that the plot was partly constructed and to get executed a supplementary sale deed whereas on the other hand they demanded the extension fee which was wrong and illegal. Due to this acts and conduct of the opposite party he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.           Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised regarding maintainability; complainant is not the consumer of opposite party; locus standi; mis joinder and non-joinder of the parties and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On merits, it has been submitted that previous allottee Shri Deep Ram Singh had applied for seeking transfer permission vide his application dated 3.12.2007 and the transfer permission was issued in favour of the complainant, vide letter dated 24.1.2008. As the complete required documents were not submitted within the stipulated period, so the re-allotment letter could not be issued in favour of the complainant and as such the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It has further been pleaded that as per condition no.18 of the allotment letter, the allottee was bound to complete the construction within 2 years from the date of offer of possession. On the request of the allottee the period of construction was extendable as per the policy of HUDA. It was made clear that the above policy guidelines was reviewed and it had been decided that henceforth no extension shall be granted beyond 15 years including the initial stipulated period of two years(2+13) after offer of possession. Opposite party issued a letter dated 31.12.2007 to raise/complete minimum required construction and occupation certificate received on payment of prescribed extension fee. After receiving the said notice Shri Deep Raman Singh submitted a building plan for sanction and the same was sanctioned, vide letter dated 29.12.2006. Thereafter, he applied for occupation certificate, vide application dated 31.12.2007 and same was not issued as on spot inspection, JE found that minimum required construction was not complete.Complainant submitted a copy of sale deed dated 9.5.2008 for issuance of reallotment letter in his favour. The complainant has not completed the required formalities so reallotment letter was not issued in his name and extension fee had also been demanded as per HUDA policy. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A  and document Ex.C1 to C6 and close the evidence.

4.           On the other hand, opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Darshan Singh Estate Officer Ex.OPW1/A and documents OP1 to OP11 and closed the evidence.

5.           We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.           Learned counsel for complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that Shri Deep Raman Singh and his wife Smt. Mohinder Kaur were the owner of the house no.1389, Sector-6 Karnal and they executed a sale deed no.1095/1 dated 9.5.2008 in favour of the complainant by virtue of which the complainant has become the owner of the house in question. He further argued that thereafter the complainant made request dated 30.11.2009 and 16.6.2010 for transfer of plot in question in the name of complainant as well as for issuance of occupation of completion certificate, but action was taken by the opposite party. He further argued that the previous owner vide application dated 31.12.2007 also applied for obtaining occupation/completion certificate, but no action was taken by the opposite party. He further argued that the opposite party got issued a letter dated 25.5.2011 to the complainant for depositing an amount of Rs.85,187/- as extension fee and the same was deposited by the complainant. He further argued that vide letter dated 19.1.2012, the opposite party has directed the complainant to submit required documents and similarly vide letter dated 22.7.2014 the complainant again requested to submit the required documents. He further argued that on one hand the opposite party has not treated the plot as partly constructed house and compelled the complainant to deposit the extension fee of Rs.85,187/- whereas on the other hand, the opposite party is compelling the complainant to get executed a supplementary sale deed because it is not a plot only but a partly constructed house. He further argued that the above act of the opposite party quite illegal and wrong.

7.           On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the previous allottee Shri Deep Raman Singh has applied for seeking transfer permission, vide application dated 3.12.2007 and transfer permission was issued in favour of the complainant, vide letter no.1241 dated 24.01.2008. He further argued that the complainant has applied for issuance of reallotment letter but the same could not issued as the complainant has not submitted the complete required documents within the stipulated period. He further argued that the complainant is not the allottee nor re-allottee as no re-allotment letter has been issued in his name so the complainant is not a consumer. He further argued that as per revised policy guidelines, a notice was issued to Shri Deep Raman Singh for completion of minimum required construction on the plot and there upon said Deep Raman Singh submitted building plan for sanction and the same was sanctioned vide letter dated 29.12.2006. He further argued that said Deep Raman Singh applied for occupation certificate, vide application dated 31.12.2007, but the same was not granted as the minimum required construction was not complete. He further argued that the extension fee of the plot in question was assessed as per policy of the department because the minimum required construction was not completed on the plot. He further argued that as the complainant has not completed the required formalities, therefore, the reallotment letter could not be issued in his name. He further argued that unless and until the formalities are completed by the complainant, the allotment cannot be issued in his name and he is not entitled for completion certificate.

8.           From the facts and evidence of the case, it is clear that the previous owner Shri Deep Raman Singh has applied for seeking transfer permission, vide application dated 3.12.2007 and the permission was issued in favour of the complainant by the opposite party, vide letter dated 24.1.2008. It is admitted case of the parties that a building plan has been sanctioned by the opposite party, vide letter dated 29.12.2016 in favour of Deep Ram Singh, but the occupation certificate was not issued in his favour as the minimum required construction was not completed by him. From sale deed Ex.OP9 it is clear that the complainant has got the sale deed registered regarding a plot and not regarding the partial constructed house. So, it is clear from the sale deed that the minimum required construction has not been done by the previous owner. Unless and until the required formalities regarding construction have not been completed by the complainant the opposite party cannot be compelled to issue the occupation/completion certificate. In these circumstances, we found no deficiency on the part of the opposite party in not issuing occupation/completion certificate.   

9.           The complainant has also prayed for refund of the amount of extension fee deposited by him with the opposite party. This Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to extension fee. In this regard we can rely upon the authority titled as PUDA Versus Varinder Singh Lamba 2016 (2) CLT 154 (NC) . In the cited authority the Hon’ble National Commission has referred the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in (2005) 2 SCC 479 HUDA Versus Sunita wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Consumer Courts are not empowered to decide the issue of extension fees levied by the development authorities. In view of this authority of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the considered view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the issue regarding the extension fee. Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

9.           As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 07.09.2017

                                                             

                                                         President,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                  (Anil Sharma)

                       Member