BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.51/2019.
Date of institution: 21.02.2019.
Date of decision:12.03.2020.
Sunita Rani @ Sunita Gulati, daughter of Surender Kumar and wife of Om Parkash Gulati, resident of H.No.664P Sector-20, HUDA/HSVP, Kaithal-136027.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (earlier known as Haryana Urban Development Authority) through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, HUDA (now HSVP), Panchkula.
- Estate Officer, HSVP (earlier HUDA), Kaithal.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Present: Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Subhash Chugh, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is resident of H.No.664P, Sector-20, HSVP (earlier HUDA), Kaithal (size 10 marla i.e. measuring 231.00 Sq.Meters) and she is owner in possession of the above-said house vide sale deed No.5988/1 dt. 12.01.2017. It is alleged that the re-allotment letter issued by the Ops in favour of complainant bearing memo No.Z0004/EO007/UE015/REALL/
0000000334 dt. 02.02.2017. It is alleged that after a period of 19/20 years from the date of making payment of enhanced compensation, the Op no.2 served notice upon the complainant for making payment of enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.76,000/- in three installments vide letter bearing memo No.ZO004/EO007/UE015/DELET/0000000272 dt. 03.02.2017 but the Op authority did not provide any computation/calculation sheet of IInd enhancement compensation to the complainant. Since the complainant is a law abiding citizen, so, she deposited the requisite amount of enhanced compensation in three installments on respective dates i.e. on 04.03.2017, 03.08.2017 and 03.02.2018 vide different challans under protest and requested the Op No.2 to supply the calculations qua the IInd enhanced compensation vide different letters dt. 04.03.2017, 03.08.2017 and 03.02.2018. After repeated requests of complainant by visiting the office of Ops at Kaithal as-well-as at Panchkula, an official from the office of Op No.2 informed him that this second enhancement was awarded by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dt. 09.09.2008 in LPA No.1046 to 1049, 1150, 1406 and 2803 of 2001 and supplied him a photo-copy of letter dt. 22.08.2016 addressed to Op No.2 by Chief Accounts Officer, Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula regarding recovery of enhanced compensation with the calculations. After scrutinizing the calculations annexed with the letter dt. 22.08.2016 issued on behalf of Op no.1, it is clear that the Op authority has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by making unreasonable and arbitrary recovery through the demand notice dt. 03.02.2017. No reason has been given by the Op authority as to why the enhanced compensation has been demanded after a delay of more than 8 years after the passing of judgment by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Ops have unreasonably demanded Rs.76,000/- from the complainant. As per judgment dt. 09.09.2008 of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, the compensation of Rs.2,89,701/- per acre has been awarded for the land acquired @ Rs.1,00,00/- per acre vide award No.14, 15 & 16 dt. 26.02.1992. Therefore, the amount of compensation enhanced by the Hon’ble High Court comes to Rs.1,89,701/- per acre which is approximately Rs.46.87/- per sq. mtrs. (1 acre=Rs.4046.86 sq.mtrs.) but the Ops have wrongly calculated the enhanced price @ Rs.304.98 per sq. mtrs. It is further alleged that in the month of June, 2018 the complainant came to know that other residents/allottees of the area also received similar illegal notices which they challenged before the court of law and in response to which, the Op authority introduced a Óne Time Settlement Scheme’ by giving a rebate of 40% on the amount outstanding on account of additional price upon a condition that the allottee shall withdraw pending litigation, if any and shall not file any litigation in future in regard to the demand of additional price of his plot. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that as per condition No.3 of allotment, the price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under land acquisition act shall also be payable proportionately as determined by the authority; that the complainant accepted the terms and conditions of allotment of plot and is bound to abide by the terms and conditions of allotment letter and the provisions of HSVP Act; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Undisputedly, the complainant was allotted one residential plot bearing No.664P, Sector-20, Urban Estate Kaithal vide re-allotment letter bearing memo No.Z0004/EO007/UE015/REALL/0000000334 dt. 02.02.2017 as per Annexure-C3. According to the complainant, on 03.02.2017 the Op no.2 served notice upon the complainant for making payment of enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.70,450/- vide letter bearing memo No.ZO004/EO007/UE015/DELET/0000000272 dt. 03.02.2017 as per Annexure-C4 which was duly paid by the complainant in three installments i.e. Rs.24,323/- on 03.03.2017, Rs.23,500/- on 03.08.2017 and Rs.22,837/- on 07.02.2018 under protest, copy of receipts of the deposited installments are Annexure-C6 & Annexure-C7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further contended that after repeated requests of complainant by visiting the office of Ops at Kaithal as-well-as at Panchkula, an official from the office of Op No.2 informed him that this enhancement was awarded by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dt. 09.09.2008 in LPA No.1046 to 1049, 1150, 1406 and 2803 of 2001 and supplied him a photo-copy of letter dt. 22.08.2016 addressed to Op No.2 by Chief Accounts Officer, Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula regarding recovery of enhanced compensation with the calculations. He further contended that as per judgment dt. 09.09.2008 of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, the compensation of Rs.2,89,701/- per acre has been awarded for the land acquired @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre vide award No.14, 15 & 16 dt. 26.02.1992. Therefore, the amount of compensation enhanced by the Hon’ble High Court comes to Rs.1,89,701/- per acre which is approximately Rs.46.87/- per sq. mtrs. (1 acre=Rs.4046.86 sq.mtrs.) but the Ops have wrongly calculated the enhanced price @ Rs.304.98 per sq. mtrs. He further contended that in the month of June, 2018 the complainant came to know that other residents/allottees of the area also received similar illegal notices which they challenged before the court of law and in response to which, the Ops authority introduced a Óne Time Settlement Scheme’ by giving a rebate of 40% on the amount outstanding on account of additional price upon a condition that the allottee shall withdraw pending litigation, if any and shall not file any litigation in future in regard to the demand of additional price of his plot. Ld. Counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the case law titled as Charanjit Bajaj and others Vs. The State of Haryana, 1986 PLJ page 601 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) and Kumari D.Umabala and others 2019(1) CLT page 173 (NC).
7. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contended that as per condition No.3 of allotment, the price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under land acquisition act shall also be payable proportionately as determined by the authority. He further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the complainant has deposited the amount voluntarily, he could avail the opportunity by way of filing the recovery suit in the competent court of law or if he was aggrieved with the enhancement notice Annexure-C4, he could challenge the same in the Civil Court or in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. He further contended that the complainant accepted the terms and conditions of allotment of plot and is bound to abide by the terms and conditions of allotment letter.
8. We have perused the case file. We are of the view that the complainant is consumer of Ops and under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant has every right to challenge all proceedings initiated by the Ops illegally and the above-said contention of Ops has no force. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted copy of detailed calculation as per enhancement awarded by Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dt. 09.09.2008, copy of order dt. 20.09.2017 bearing L.A. case No.97 of 1997 titled as Jagat Ram & others Vs. Haryana State etc. passed by the court of Sh. S.P.Singh, the then Addl. District Judge, Kaithal and order dt. 01.09.2018 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case bearing L.P.A.No.350 of 2001 titled as Manohar Lal & others Vs. Haryana State etc. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops also placed on record copy of letter bearing memo No.HSVP/CCF/Acct.-II/2019 216170-71 dt. 03.12.2019 regarding the extension of the period for allowing the facilities till the fresh demand notices in account of pending recalculation of additional price mentioning therein as under:-
“1. As you are aware that recalculation of additional price on account of enhanced compensation in case of sale or lease of plots/land or building by allotment is to be done as per instruction no.63 issued vide memo no.152100 dated 22.08.2019. The calculation/recalculation is still pending in all the Zones and till that time, facilities are being given to the allottees as the amount of enhancement is outstanding.
2. Earlier, facilities like Occupation certificate, mortgage/demortgage approval of Building plan, Water/Sewerage connection, Electricity connection except sale/purchase were allowed till 31.10.2019. However, it has come to the notice that these facilities are not being provided by the field offices resulting in convenience to the allottees. The Government has taken a very serious view of this.
3. Now, it has been decided that the above-said facilities except sale/purchase is hereby extended upto 31.12.2019. You are, therefore, requested to take necessary action accordingly.
4. This is being issued with the approval of Worthy Chief Administrator, HSVP.”
Ld. Counsel for the Ops also drawn our attention towards the letter bearing memo No.HSVP/CCF/Acct.-II/2020 dt. 15.01.2020 written by Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula to all the Zonal Administrators, HSVP as-well-as all the Estate Officers, HSVP (in the State) regarding the extension of the period for allowing the facilities till the fresh demand notices in account of pending recalculation of additional price, wherein in para No.3 it has been mentioned that the Chief Administrator, HSVP has directed to request you to take immediate necessary action for calculation/re-calculation of additional price on account of enhanced compensation as per instruction no.63 and complete the process by 31.01.2020. As per the term and condition No.3 of re-allotment letter empowers the Op authority to demand the additional price qua enhancement in the cost of land from the allottee. Definition of ‘additional price’ under regulation 2(b) of The Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of land & Building) Regulation 1978 excludes demand of interest from its ambit which is reproduced below:-
“ADDITIONAL PRICE” and “ADDITIONAL PREMIUM” means such sum of money as may be determined by the Chief Administrator in respect of the sale or lease of the land or building by allotment, which may become payable by the transferee or lessee with respect to land or building sold or leased to him in a sector on account of enhancement of compensation of any land or building in the same sector by the court on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the amount of cost incurred in respect of such reference .”
We are of the view that the Ops have auctioned/allotted the land acquired for the purpose of carving out the sector in shape of residential and commercial plots or roads and parking etc. and they were duty bound to calculate the enhancement amount after considering all the aspects and then, they could send the enhancement notice to the plot-holder in a proportionate cost. Even otherwise, in view of the letter bearing memo No.HSVP/CCF/Acct.-II/2019 216170-71 dt. 03.12.2019 and letter bearing memo No.HSVP/CCF/Acct.-II/2020 dt. 15.01.2020 issued by Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula to all the Zonal Administrators, HSVP as-well-as all the Estate Officers, HSVP (in the State) mentioned above, there is no calculation with the Ops till today. Without calculation, how the HUDA department can issue the enhancement notice Annexure-C4. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that the notice dt. 03.02.2017 for payment of enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.70,450/- issued by the Ops is wrong and illegal and the same is hereby quashed. Hence, the said act of Ops while demanding the enhancement amount tantamount to unfair trade practice. So far the relief regarding one time settlement scheme floated by the department giving a rebate of 40% on the amount outstanding on account of additional price upon a condition that allottee shall withdraw pending litigation, if any and shall not file any litigation in future in regard to the demand of additional price of his plot, amount/interest paid etc. is concerned, the perusal of above-said scheme Annexure-C15, it is clear that the scheme shall be open for a period of only for a period of two months, this scheme was not in existence at the time of depositing the enhancement amount as demanded by way of notice dt. 03.02.2017 as per Anneuxre-C4, so, the complainant is not entitled to take the relief of above-said scheme in the present case. It is not disputed that the complainant deposited the above-said amount under protest, so, the complainant is entitled for refund of said amount of Rs.70,450/- deposited through three installments i.e. Rs.24,323/- on 03.03.2017, Rs.23,500/- on 03.08.2017 and Rs.22,837/- on 07.02.2018 as is clear from the payment received detail attached with the Annexure-C7alongwith interest.
9. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.70,450/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit of amount mentioned above till its realization and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges. However, it is made clear that the Ops may issue fresh demand letter after re-examination & re-calculating the enhancement amount to the plot-holder and similarly, if the complainant is not satisfied with the re-calculation of Ops’ department, then the complainant is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law, if so desire. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:12.03.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Rajbir Singh)
Member.
