1.      Heard Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Vinod Kumar (the complainant) has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) reschedule the instalments starting from the time of actual handover of plot No.2442 admeasuring 258.33 sq. yards, Sector 79, SAS Nagar, Mohali, for all intent and purposes i.e. payment of interest, starting period of construction etc. (ii) pay compensation in the form of interest @18% per annum on Rs.5106965/-, from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, (iii) pay Rs.5/- lakhs as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iv) pay Rs.88000/-, as the cost of the litigation; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.      The complainant stated that Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (the opposite party) was a statutory authority and was developing township at SAS Nagar, Mohali under Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. One Amrit Pal Singh, (predecessor-in-interest of the complainant) applied for allotment of a residential plot, in this scheme on 15.01.2001. The opposite party raised dispute relating to his eligibility. Therefore, Amrit Pal Singh filed CWP No.12573 of 2011 in Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was allowed on 19.07.2012 and the opposite party was directed to allot one plot to Amrit Pal Singh. The opposite party issued Letter of Intent dated 24.01.2013, informing that tentative price of plot of approx. 250 sq. yards was Rs.75/- lakhs and requiring him to deposit 25% of the cost within 60 days. Amrit Pal Singh deposited required amount on 18.03.2013. Amrit Pal Singh was allotted Plot No.2442/Park Facing, tentative cost of Rs.8137395/- Sector 79, SAS Nagar, Mohali, in draw. The opposite party issued allotment letter dated 21.03.2013, of Plot No.2442 to Amrit Pal Singh. The complainant purchased Plot No.2442 from Amrit Pal Singh and moved an application dated 20.05.2013 before Estate Officer for recording his name over the aforesaid plot, which was allowed and the opposite party issued Re-Allotment Letter dated 13.06.2013 of Plot No.2442 in favour of the complainant on the same terms and condition as mentioned in allotment letter dated 21.03.2013. As per allotment letter dated 21.03.2013, the allottee was required to take possession within 60 days of the allotment. The complainant stated that the plot was not feasible for taking possession as in Sector-79, SAS Nagar, Mohali, about 102 acres land was under litigation relating to its acquisition, with the farmers. The complainant sought for an information about the feasibility of the plot under Right to Information Act, 2005. Then the opposite party gave reply on 08.08.2014 that the plot was feasible for possession. The complainant sought for information as to whether plot No.2442 situated over 102 acres land and was subject matter was dispute. Then the opposite party in reply dated 18.08.2015, admitted that plot No.2442 was within 102 acres disputed land. The complainant moved an application dated 20.08.2015, before Estate Officer for allotting him another undisputed plot. The opposite party issued a letter dated 27.05.2016 that dispute with the farmers had come to an end by giving them land in pooling scheme. The complainant again wrote a letter dated 20.04.2017, asking the status and feasibility of the plot and for re-scheduling the instalments. The opposite party, vide letter dated 05.01.2018, informed to take physical possession, by getting layout plan sanctioned but the letter was silent in respect of interest on delayed instalments and its rescheduling. The complainant took plea that plot No.2442, allotted to him was in dispute between the opposite party and the farmers as such the opposite party was not entitled to charge interest and any surcharge, for delayed instalments. The complainant has already deposited substantial amount of Rs.51/- lakhs as such the opposite party was bound to reschedule the payment of instalments, after resolving the dispute with the farmers. Then the complaint was filed on 15.02.2018, alleging deficiency in service. 

4.      The opposite party filed its written reply on 18.06.2018 and contested the matter. In the written reply, allotment of plot No.2442, Sector 79, SAS Nagar, Mohali to Amrit Pal Singh on 21.03.2013 and its transfer and re-allotment to the complainant on 13.06.2013, have not been disputed. The opposite party stated that it had acquired the land, in 2001 for development of township. Some of the farmers (related to 102 acres land) challenged the acquisition of the land in CWP No.7050 of 2001, which was dismissed by Punjab and Haryana High Court, by order dated 19.04.2011. Aggrieved persons challenged the order dated 19.04.2011 before Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7424 of 2013.  As the acquisition had been upheld by the High Court, the opposite party allotted it to Amrit Pal Singh on 21.03.2013. As per Clause 12 of the allotment letter, the allottee had to take possession of the plot within 60 days of issue of allotment letter and after expiry of 60 days, it would be presumed that the allottee had taken possession of the plot allotted to him. In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from Amrit Pal Singh and informed the office of the opposite party through application dated 20.05.2013, for transferring the plot in his name. His application was allowed and re-allotment letter dated 13.06.2013 was issued to the complainant making it clear that the terms of conditions of original allotment letter by letter No.7142 dated 21.03.2013 would be applicable. As per allotment letter, the allottee had to pay the balance amount in instalments on 21.03.2014, 21.09.2014, 21.03.2015, 21.09.2015, 21.03.2016 & 21.09.2016. The complainant paid instalment payable in March, 2014 and September, 2014, but stopped payments of subsequent instalments. Civil Appeal No.7424 of 2013 was allowed by Supreme Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2015 and acquisition had been quashed. Thereafter, the opposite party decided to acquire the land through private communication with the farmers. In the meeting dated 15.01.2016 with the farmers’ settlement had taken place. In pursuance to the settlement, the opposite party came with the offer of a special package to the farmers for allotment of developed residential and commercial area in proportion to the area acquired from them over the vacant plots. A public notice in this respect was published on 19.04.2016 and the farmers accepted the scheme without any further dispute. The complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the original allotment dated 21.03.2013, but he has failed to deposit the instalment payable in March, 2015, September, 2015, March, 2016 and September, 2016, as such as per Clause 8 of the allotment letter, the interest was liable to be charged. So far as extension of period is concerned, under the bye laws, the complainant has to pay penalty for not raising construction within the time allowed under Clause 13 of the Allotment Letter. The complainant has made exaggerated prayer in the complaint although he is not entitled for any relief. Preliminary objections that the complainant was not a consumer as he has purchased the land for the purposes of sale and the allotment letter contained an arbitration clause, therefore, the dispute is liable to be referred to the Arbitrator, have also been raised.

5.      The complainant filed its Rejoinder Reply on 25.07.2018, Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documentary evidence of Vinod Kumar. The opposite party filed Affidavit of Evidence  and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documentary evidence of Baljeet Singh. The complainant filed written synopsis also.  After the arguments, the complainant has filed an affidavit annexing his ledger of account statement as maintained by the opposite party.

6.      We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record.  Admittedly the complainant purchased the plot from Amrit Pal Singh in May, 2013. On the application of the complainant, his name was recorded over the plot in dispute by the opposite party and re-allotment letter dated 13.06.2013 was issued to the complainant, in which, it has been mentioned that the terms and conditions of the original allotment letter No.7142 dated 21.03.2013 would be applicable. As per original allotment letter the balance amount was required to be deposited in 6-monthly instalments starting from 21.03.2014 to 21.09.2016.  A perusal of the statement of account attached with affidavit dated 20.09.2022 shows that the complainant deposited  instalments dated 15.04.2013, 21.03.2014 & 22.09.2014 and thereafter he deposited Rs.3000000/- on 10.04.2018 and Rs.30430/- on 10.04.2018. The instalments payable in March, 2015, September, 2015, March, 2016 and September, 2016 have not been deposited, on time under the shelter of the order of Supreme Court dated 22.01.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.7424 of 2013.

7.      The complainant took plea that due to dispute with the farmers relating to the acquisition of the land, the opposite party was neither in a position to deliver possession of the plot in dispute nor it was feasible for the complainant to take its possession. Therefore, the complainant righty did not deposit the instalments payable from March, 2015 onwards. A perusal of clause 10 of the allotment letter dated 21.03.2013 shows possession has to be taken within 60 days of issue of allotment and in case the allottee fails to take possession within 60 days, it would be presumed that allottee had taken possession of the plot in dispute. At the time of issue of allotment letter, the dispute between the farmers and the opposite party was pending before the Supreme Court. Inspite of pendency of the dispute, Amrit Pal Singh and thereafter the complainant purchased the plot in dispute.  As such on subsequent date, it was not appropriate for the complainant to stop payment of the instalment in the garb of the order of Supreme Court. Although Supreme Court has quashed the acquisition by order dated 22.01.2015, but the opposite party settled the dispute with the farmers by allotting them residential and commercial plot in proportion of their acquired area and plot No.2442 of the complainant remained unaffected. The complainant seeks benefit of allotment letter dated 21.03.2013, in respect of rate of land as such he is liable to comply with the terms and condition of the allotment letter dated 21.03.2013. Re-schedule the instalment, waiving interest and surcharges during this period, will not be appropriate. A perusal of the allotment letter dated 21.03.2013 shows that Plot No.2442 was Park Facing and its tentative cost was Rs.8137395/-. As such the complainant has to make payment in terms of allotment letter dated 21.03.2013.

8.      Admittedly under bye laws the extension can be granted after paying penalty for it. As the plot allotted to the complainant was under dispute from January, 2015 to April, 2016, it will not be appropriate that the opposite party may not to charge penalty from January, 2015 to April, 2016, for not getting the lay out plan sanctioned.

ORDER

          In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to give afresh statement of account to the complainant, giving him at least three month period to deposit the balance amount, within one month of producing certified copy of this order before appropriate authority. In case the complainant applies for sanction of lay out plan, the opposite party will not charge any penalty from January, 2015 to April, 2016 and sanction it as per bye laws applicable in it.