Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/29/2013

Satpal S/o kaka ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority. - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.Sagri

28 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  29  of 2013

                                                                                    Date of institution: 8.1.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 28.9.2015.

Satpal son of Shri Kaka Ram, resident of C-7/601, Sham Sunder Puri, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                                                                   Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Sub Divisional Engineer.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …Opposite party        

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Joginder Singh Sagri, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. Anuj Jain, Advocate, counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Satpal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to withdraw/quash the bill No. 96605 dated 14.12.2012 for Rs. 26367/- and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses etc.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by complainant, are that the house of the complainant is situated at Sham Sunderpuri bearing No. C-7/601 which is adjacent to the sector 18 (P-1) and is part of Khasra No. 116/26, Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar which had been constructed by the complainant much prior to acquisition of the land for carving out Sector 18 by the Haryana Development Authority ( hereinafter referred as HUDA). It has been further stated that above said property of the complainant was released from acquisition by the Land Acquisition Collector. The complainant had applied for water connection as well as sewerage connection with the HUDA vide application dated 3.1.2012 which was sanctioned by the OP vide its memo No. 342 dated 25.1.2012. It has been further stated that OP has sent a notice for the abovesaid facility of sewerage and water connection and demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant and the same was deposited with the OP and an amount of Rs. 957/- was also deposited on account of up to date charges vide book No. 483 receipt No. 43 dated 27.12.2012 with the OP.

3.                     Now the OP has sent a bill No. 96605 dated 14.12.2012 for Rs. 26367/- to the complainant which is wrong, illegal, arbitrarily and has been imposed illegally and the same is liable to be quashed. The complainant approached to OP with request to quash the abovesaid bill and not to recover the illegal amount but the OP flatly refused to quash the said bill and also threatened with disconnection of sewerage as well as water connection in case the abovesaid illegal amount was not deposited. Hence, this complaint.

4.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint not maintainable, complainant has not come with clean hands, one civil suit titled as Satpal Versus HUDA is pending in the civil Court at Jagadhri and on merit it has been stated that it is true fact that initially notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to acquire the land including Khasra No. 116/26 related to the complainant but thereafter some part of the said Khasra was released and remaining land of said Khasra has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula vide award No.15 dated 15.3.1993. It has been further stated that on 3.1.2012, the complainant had applied for sewerage and water connection for the part of land which was released from acquisition and deposited a sum of Rs. 1980/- through demand draft dated 3.1.2012. The official of the HUDA inspected the site on 17.1.2012 and it was found that sewerage and water connection were already in the said site. Hence, the sewerage and water connection prior to sanction by the OP were unauthorized on the spot and against the policy of HUDA Authority.  However, the said water and sewerage connections have been sanctioned vide letter memo No.338 dated 25.1.2012 (Annexure R-5) and vide letter memo No. 342 dated 25.1.2012 (Annexure R-4) subject to penalty of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively as per instruction issued by the Chief Administrative HUDA, Panchkula vide letter Memo No. SA-HUDA-09/2186 dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure R-6). The complainant himself is at fault and now with the malafide intention to avoid the amount of penalty and arrear of bill No. 96605 dated 14.12.2012 for Rs. 26367/-, he has filed the present complaint on the basis of false and frivolous ground which is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It has been further denied that the complainant has ever been deposited Rs. 20,000/- for the facility of sewerage and water connection, as alleged. However, only an amount of Rs. 957/- was deposited being part payment of bill No. 96605 dated 14.12.2012 for Rs. 26367/-. If the complainant has deposited any amount on account of external development charges for water/ sewerage connection, the same were requisite to deposit in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, which has no relevancy with the abovesaid bill of Rs. 26367/-. Lastly prayed that bill No. 96605/- dated 14.12.2012 for Rs. 26367/- is correct and legal and there is no relationship of consumer and supplier and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of letter dated 26.5.2011 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 14900/- as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of letter dated 20.12.2011 regarding sanction of unauthorized water/sewerage connection as Annexure C-3, Photo, Photo copy of Memo No. 338 and 342  dated  25.1.2012 as Annexure C-4 and C-5 respectively, Photo copy of bill dated 14.12.2012 as Annexure C-6 , Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 957/- as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of application for quashing the fine as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of list of unauthorized connection used as Annexure C-9 and closed his evidence. .

 6.                    On the other hand, counsel for the OP filed an affidavit of Sh. Yogeshwar, Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Jagadhri as Annexure RX and documents such as Annexure R-1 Photo copy of complaint decided on 30.9.2010 in case Renu Sangwan vs. HUDA, Annexure R-2 Copy of letter dated 3.1.2012 issued by Executive Engineer, HUDA Division Karnal, Annexure R-3 Photo copy of letter dated 17.1.2012 , Annexure R-4 Photo copy of memo No. 342 dated 25.1.2012, Annexure R-5 Photo copy of memo No. 338 dated 25.1.2012 , Annexure R-6, Photo copy of letter vide memo No. SA-HUDA-09/2186 dated 8.6.2009  and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely and carefully.

8.                     The only plea of the OP is that the sewerage and water connection of the complainant was already in existence as per report of the Junior Engineer, which is evident from Annexure R-2 and R-3 and as per HUDA rules and regulations an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of sewerage connection and Rs. 1000/- on account of water connection has rightly been levied being unauthorized connection upon the complainant vide Annexure R-4 and R-5 and in this regard Guidelines regarding this has been issued by the Chief Administrative HUDA, Panchkula which is Annexure R-6. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the parts of OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone and referred the case law titled as Sanju Jindal & Another Versus HUDA & Others passed in Revision Petition No. 569 of 2011 decided on 23.5.2015 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that the complainant is not allottee of OPs in land bearing Khasra No. 116/26 which is adjacent to the Sector-18 (P-1) Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The house of the complainant was got constructed much prior to acquisition of land for carving out of the Sector-18 HUDA  and at that time OP has released his premises from acquisition. Hence, no allotment letter has ever been issued to the complainant and no terms and conditions of any such type is applicable on the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that case titled as Satpal Vs. E.O. HUDA which was pending before the civil court at Jagadhri has already been dismissed as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the complainant lastly argued that the OP has wrongly imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 1000/- on account of sewerage and water connection upon the complainant whereas the OP has already sanctioned water and sewerage connection of complainant vide their letter No.104 dated 20.12.2011 and prayed for quashing the aforesaid penalty.

10.                   It is not disputed that the complainant is not the allottee of the OP and he had constructed his house prior to the acquisition of land for carving out the sector 18(P-1) and it is also not disputed that the OP has charged External Development Charges for sewerage and water connection from the complainant in the month of June 2011. From the perusal of contents of case file, it is clear that the Guidelines for self assessment of compoundable assessment Annexure R-6 issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula are not applicable in the case of the complainant. These guidelines are applicable only in the cases of allottees of HUDA and this fact  has clearly been mentioned in the first line of guidelines Annexure R-6 which are reproduced as under for ready reference :

Subject:          Guideliens for self Assessment of Compoundable Violations.

“It has been observed that allottees are facing great difficulty in obtaining occupation certificate. The tedious process of checking of completion report and assessment of violations results in consumption of time and thus delays occur. In order to streamline the system, it has been decided to introduce  a system of self assessment in the case of compoundable violations with the following measures”.

            So, from the perusal of contents of these guidelines it is clear that these guidelines have been issued in respect of allottees only, hence, the penalty imposed upon the complainant amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 1000/- for sewerage and water connection respectively by the OP is totally illegal and is liable to be quashed. Besides this, the OP has already charged Rs. 14900/- (13860 + 1040= 14900/-) from the complainant on account of External Development Charges for water and sewerage connection which is evident from (Annexure C-2) receipt of Punjab National Bank issued on 10.6.2011 which was demanded by the OP vide memo No.1972 dated 26.5.2011 (Annexure C-1.) In this way when the OP has charged External Development Charges for water and sewerage connection separately on 10.6.2011 from the complainant then how they can charge penalty for sewerage and water connection in the year 2012 vide bill No. 96605 dated 14.12.2012 i.e. after near about 1 ½ year and after 1 year from sanction of connection i.e. 20.12.2011. Moreover, the OP has sanctioned the water connection and sewerage connection vide their letter memo No.104 dated 20.12.2011. Further, it is clear from (Annexure C-6) Bill No. 96605 of Rs. 26367/- that OP has not given any notice of personal hearing prior to imposing the  said penalty upon the complainant and without giving any opportunity for personal hearing, any penalty is against the principle of nature justice Hence the action of the OP for imposing  penalty amount of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 1000/- on account of sewerage and water connection is totally against the law and facts and the same is laible to be quashed.  The case law referred by the OP titled as Sanju Jindal & Another Versus HUDA & Others (supra) is not disputed but facts of this case are not applicable in the present case as in this case there was no dispute between the allottee and HUDA. In the present case, the complainant is not the allottee of HUDA and guidelines issued by Chief Administrator HUDA, Panchkula vide memo No. SA-HUDA-09/2136 dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure R-6) are not applicable to the case of complainant. Moreover, when the OP has already charged Rs. 14900/- on account of External and Development Charges for water and sewerage connection from the complainant as is evident from Annexure C-2. Accordingly penalty imposed upon the complainant is hereby quashed.

11.                   Resultantly we partly allow the complaint of complainant and quash the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 1000/- levied on account of sewerage and water connection and directed the OP to issue fresh bill on account of Sewerage and Water charges to the complainant after dropping the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 1000/- and interest or surcharge, if any, there upon. The complaint is decided accordingly. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 28.9.2015.

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER