BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. 742 of 2013.
Date of institution: 07.10.2013
Date of decision: 14.09.2016.
Balbir Singh aged about 55 years son of Shri Amrik Singh, resident of House No. 169, Nanak Nagar, Farakpur, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar . …Complainant.
Versus
- Haryana Urban Development Authority, through Estate Officer, HUDA, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
- The Sub Divisional Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
- …Respondents.
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,
SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pawan Kumar Punia, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh. Anuj Jain, Advocate, counsel for respondents.
ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg President)
1. Complainant Balbir Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to handover the actual physical and vacant possession of the plot bearing No. 2203-P, Sector-18, Part-II, HUDA, Jagadhri and also further directed to waive off the interest imposed by them due to offer of possession and to receive the further installments without interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had purchased one Plot No. 2203-P, situated in Sector-18, Part-II, HUDA, Jagadhri measuring 180 sq. meter from one Man Mohan Singh s/o Shri Darshan Singh which was transferred/ Re-allotted in the favour of complainant vide Re-allotment letter No. 35713 dated 06.07.2006 by the OPs. At the time of Re-allotment, the complainant had to deposit six (6) installments of Rs. 1, 14,147/- each out of which the complainant had already deposited five (5) installments with the OPs. The OPs, vide their letter No. 8124 dated 16.11.2009, had offered the paper possession of the plot No. 2203-P and a possession certificate bearing memo No. S-198 dated 02.02.2010 was also issued to the complainant but in fact, the actual, peaceful and physical possession of the plot in question was not handed over to the complainant at the spot. As the complainant had to construct his house and as such the complainant moved applications from time to time i.e. on 27.01.2010, 23.04.2010 and 03.05.2012 requesting the OPs to handover the physical possession of the plot but the OPs instead of handing over the actual and physical possession had started imposing possession offer interest arbitrarily upon the complainant. Not only this, the OPs have also issued a show cause notice dated 22.08.2013 for depositing of installments. It has been further mentioned that complainant is ready and willing to deposit the installments and out of the last installment of Rs. 1,14,147/-, the complainant had deposited Rs. 44,500/- with the OPs. But till end 2013, the OPs have totally failed to handover the physical possession of the plot in question. Moreover, the complainant has come to know that there is illegal possession of some other persons over the plot in question. The said plot was purchased by the complainant in the year 2006 and the possession of the same has not been handed over to him till end of 2013. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement defending the case by stating that in fact at the time of demarcation of the plot by the concerned official of the OPs, it was found on spot that some part of the said plot falls in the area under litigation and due to this physical possession of the said plot could not be given on the spot to the complainant. It has been further mentioned that complainant has concealed the true facts and material facts and true facts are that originally plot No. 2203-P, Sector-18, Part-II, HUDA, Jagadhri measuring 180 sq. meter was allotted to one Sh. Manmohan Singh son of Sh. Darshan Singh and thereafter it was Re-allotted to the complainant vide Re- allotment letter No. 37513 dated 06.07.2006. Thereafter, possession of the plot was offered vide letter No. 2124 dated 16.11.2009 and accordingly paper possession certificate was issued to the complainant on 02.02.2010. At the time of demarcation of the plot by the concerned officials of the OPs, it was found at the spot that some part of the plot falls in the area under litigation and due to that, physical possession of the said plot could not be given on spot to the complainant, which is matter in dispute in SLP No. 21476 of 2006 titled as Loveleen Kumar V/s State of Haryana, and is pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After knowing all these facts, a letter bearing No. 949 dated 21.03.2014 was written to the Administrator HUDA, Panchkula with the request that approval for Allotment of Alternative plot in lieu of said plot may be accorded at earliest from the competent authority, so that possession of the alternative plot may be given to the complainant. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
4. In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and photo copies of documents such as:- Re-Allotment letter as Annexure C-1, copy of possession letter as Annexure C-2, Application dated 27.01.2010 as Annexure C-3, Possession certificate as Annexure C-4, Applications written by Balbir Singh complainant as Annexure C-5 and C-6, receipt of depositing amount of Rs. 44,500- as Annexure C-7, postal receipt as Annexure C-8, Application written by Balbir Singh complainant as Annexure C-9, Show cause notice under section 17(1) HUDA as Annexure C-10, site plan as Annexure C-11 and photographs Annexure C-12 to C-16 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Shiv Kumar, Assistant Estate Officer, HUDA, Jagadhri alongwith authority letter as Annexure RW/A and photo copies of documents such as :- copy of allotment letter as Annexure R-1, copy of Re-allotment letter as Annexure R-2, copy of Letter dated 21.03.2014 for alternative plot issued to Administrator HUDA by the Estate Officer HUDA as Annexure R-3, R-4 and R-5, Copy of SLP titled as Pawan Kumar Sharma Versus State of Haryana as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.
7. It is not disputed that plot bearing No. 2203-P, Sector-18, Part-II, HUDA, Jagadhri was previously allotted to Sh. Man Manohan Singh son of Darshan Singh vide allotment letter No. 2485 dated 08.05.2006 and after that it was Re-allotted to the complainant vide Re-allotment letter No. 37513 dated 06.07.2006. It has also not denied by the OPs that complainant had not deposited five (5) installments of Rs. 1,14,147/-each and also paid Rs. 44,500/- as part payment out of 6th installment of Rs. 1,14,147/- however it a matter of record.
8. The only grievances of the complainant is that OPs HUDA has wrongly and illegally without verifying the facts had issued the possession letter as well as possession certificate (Annexure C-2 and C-4) to the complainant, whereas in fact, the plot in question was under litigation and the OPs department could not handover the physical possession to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the letters issued by the OPs to the Administrator HUDA Chandigarh (Annexure R-3, R-4 and R-5) and argued that from these letters also, it is duly evident that Ops HUDA was not in a position to handover the physical possession of the plot in question and due to that reason, E.O. office HUDA Jagadhri wrote the letters to the Administrator HUDA Panchkula. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the letters written by the complainant to the Estate officer HUDA (Annexure C-3, C-5, C-6 and C-9) wherein complainant has requested to the OPs so many times to handover the physical possession of the plot in question and not to charge interest on the installments as well as extension fees etc
9 . In the written statement two significant pleas has been taken. First is that plot in question was allotted to Sh. Man Mohan Singh and subsequently it was transferred in favour of complainant Sh. Balbir Singh and complainant is Re-allottee of the plot in question, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. With regard to it, it is submitted that Counsel for the ops has totally failed to convince this forum that Re- allottee have no right to get the physically possession of the re- allotted plot. Once the plot was transferred and subsequently re-allotted in the name of complainant then the present complainant has step into the shoes of Sh. Man Mohan Singh with full right of ownership. Second plea taken in the written statement is that possession of the plot could not be given to the litigant due to litigation i.e. SLP No. 21476 of 2006 titled as Loveleen Kumar Versus State of Haryana. If the plot in question is under litigation, as taken in the written statement, it is not the fault of the complainant as the litigation is not inter-se complainant and HUDA. It clearly shows that due to litigation possession could not be possible to be given to the complainant in time and it further shows that it was not possible to be given in the near future; hence complainant has not to suffer for it; Complainant has paid the amount and has been allotted the plot. So, we are of the considered view that, it can easily be concluded that the contention of the complainant is true that some alternative plot should be allotted to him.
10. Resultantly, under the circumstances noted, in the interest of justice, we party allow the complaint of the complainant and ops are directed to allot the alternative plot of the same area, at the same rate of previous plot No.2203 P, of the same dimensions to the complainant in Sector 18 Part II HUDA Jagadhri, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order and also further directed to waive off the interest imposed by them due to offer of possession. Order be complied within a period of 60 days failing which penal action under section 27 of the consumer protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court: 14.09.2016
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
(S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER.
