Haryana

Sonipat

CC/280/2016

Himanshu Phogat - Complainant(s)

Versus

haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Ranga

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.280 of 2016                                             Instituted on:28.07.2016

                                Date of order:20.01.2017

 

Himanshu Phogat son of Dharam Pal Singh, resident of H.No.45, GF LIG Sector 12, HBC Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.HUDA Sector 15 Sonepat through Estate Officer, Sonepat.

2.Housing Board Haryana Civil Sub Division Sonepat Sector 14 Sonepat through Estate Manager, Sonepat.

                                           …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Naveen Ranga  Advocate for complainant.

           Sh.RD Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1.

           Sh.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2.

          

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is owner in possession of the house bearing no.45 GF LIG Sector 12 HBC Sonepat and the said house was transferred in the name of the complainant vide endorsement dated 21.4.2015. After transfer of the house, the complainant detected on the spot that the owner of the house no.46 GF Sector 12 namely Raj Bala wife of Vijay Kumar has raised unauthorized and illegal construction towards the house of the complainant and due to this, the complainant is facing lot of hardship and inconvenience and could not utilize & enjoy the benefits of his property as the total area of the house of the complainant is diminished by this unauthorized construction.  The complainant has requested many a times to the owner of House no.46, but of no use.  The complainant’s  father moved a complaint dated 4.5.2015 before the respondent no.2.   The Asstt. Engineer, Housing Board Haryana Sonepat has visited the spot and requested the respondent no.2 to take necessary action against the allottee of the house no.46.  The respondent no.2 vide letter dated 24.11.2015 has intimated about the said complaint to the respondent no.1 and requested for taking necessary action regarding the unauthorized construction.  The respondent no.1 Estate Officer HUDA Sonepat has passed the order vide memo no.1404 dated 6.4.2016 regarding the unauthorized construction made by the allottee of H.No.46 and has directed the owner of the H.No.46 to remove the unauthorized construction  within three days, otherwise, action will be taken as per HUDA Byelaws.  But till date, no action has been taken by the respondents.  The respondent no.2 again replied the letter of the respondent no.1 wherein it was decided that action against the misuse of the residential premises/violation of zoning plan/building byelaws and removal of the encroachment etc. will be taken by the HUDA and needful action was again requested by the respondent no.2.  The complainant’s father moved another application to the respondent no.1 with a request to implement the order dated 6.4.23016, but of no use.  The complainant thereafter filed a criminal complaint dated 28.6.2016 against the owner of the house no.46 to the DGP Haryana and SP Sonepat for taking necessary action in the matter as the respondent no.1 has failed to take necessary action in the matter against unauthorized encroachment.  There is lapse and omission on the part of the respondents and thus, the complainant is entitled for damages and compensation from the respondents as they have rendered the deficient services to the complainant.   So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the complainant has not made the owner of house no.46 GF Sector 12 Sonepat as party in the present complaint. The house of the complainant is governed by the rule & regulation and the respondent no.2 can resume the house no.46 LIG HBC Sector 12, Sonepat.  Vide letter dated 6.5.2016 was issued to the respondent no.2 by the respondent no.1 to start resumption proceedings against the house no.46 GF Sector 12 Sonepat. The complainant is not entitled for any relief against the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the allotment of the house in question was transferred in the name of the complainant on the basis of the sale deed vide office letter no.1190 dated 21.4.2015.  In the present complaint, HPTA period of the house in question has already expired and the conveyance deed of the house has already been executed and as such necessary action in the matter is to be taken by the HUDA.  The respondent no.2 is not responsible for any administrative failure or deficient and the complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation and has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is owner in possession of the house bearing no.45 GF LIG Sector 12 HBC Sonepat and the said house was transferred in the name of the complainant vide endorsement dated 21.4.2015. After transfer of the house, the complainant detected on the spot that the owner of the house no.46 GF Sector 12 namely Raj Bala wife of Vijay Kumar has raised unauthorized and illegal construction towards the house of the complainant and due to this, the complainant is facing lot of hardship and inconvenience and could not utilize & enjoy the benefits of his property as the total area of the house of the complainant is diminished by this unauthorized construction.  The complainant has requested many a times to the owner of House no.46, but of no use.  The complainant’s  father moved a complaint dated 4.5.2015 before the respondent no.2.   The Asstt. Engineer, Housing Board Haryana Sonepat has visited the spot and requested the respondent no.2 to take necessary action against the allottee of the house no.46.  The respondent no.2 vide letter dated 24.11.2015 has intimated about the said complaint to the respondent no.1 and requested for taking necessary action regarding the unauthorized construction.  The respondent no.1 Estate Officer HUDA Sonepat has passed the order vide memo no.1404 dated 6.4.2016 regarding the unauthorized construction made by the allottee of H.No.46 and has directed the owner of the H.No.46 to remove the unauthorized construction  within three days, otherwise, action will be taken as per HUDA Byelaws.  But till date, no action has been taken by the respondents.  The respondent no.2 again replied the letter of the respondent no.1 wherein it was decided that action against the misuse of the residential premises/violation of zoning plan/building byelaws and removal of the encroachment etc. will be taken by the HUDA and needful action was again requested by the respondent no.2.  The complainant’s father moved another application to the respondent no.1 with a request to implement the order dated 6.4.23016, but of no use.  The complainant thereafter filed a criminal complaint dated 28.6.2016 against the owner of the house no.46 to the DGP Haryana and SP Sonepat for taking necessary action in the matter as the respondent no.1 has failed to take necessary action in the matter against unauthorized encroachment.  There is lapse and omission on the part of the respondents and thus, the complainant is entitled for damages and compensation from the respondents as they have rendered the deficient services to the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the complainant has not made the owner of house no.46 GF Sector 12 Sonepat as party in the present complaint. The house of the complainant is governed by the rule & regulation and the respondent no.2 can resume the house no.46 LIG HBC Sector 12, Sonepat.  Vide letter dated 6.5.2016 was issued to the respondent no.2 by the respondent no.1 to start resumption proceedings against the house no.46 GF Sector 12 Sonepat. The complainant is not entitled for any relief against the respondent no.1.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the allotment of the house in question was transferred in the name of the complainant on the basis of the sale deed vide office letter no.1190 dated 21.4.2015.  In the present complaint, HPTA period of the house in question has already expired and the conveyance deed of the house has already been executed and as such necessary action in the matter is to be taken by the HUDA.  The respondent no.2 is not responsible for any administrative failure or deficient and the complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation.

          After hearing ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          As per document C1, the house was transferred in the name of the present complainant.  The contention of the complainant is that some encroachment i.e. 2feet 6 inches has been made by the owner of house no.46 GF,HBC Sector 12 Sonepat and some illegal construction has been made in the premises of house no.45 of the complainant. This fact was confirmed by the Assistant Engineer, housing board Haryana vide letter no.246 dated 18.5.2015 (Ex.C3) written to Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, Sonepat.  The Estate Manager, Housing Board Colony has written a letter no.3423 dated 24.11.2015 to the Estate Officer, HUDA Sonepat  and has informed him that the allottee of house no.45 has submitted an application in his office on 15.5.2015 mentioning therein that the allottee of house no.46 has made encroachment on the land of his house.  Further vide document Ex.C5 i.e. letter no.1404 dated 6.4.2016 Estate Officer HUDA Sonepat has written a letter to Saroj Rani allottee of house no.46 GF LIG Sector 12 Sonepat and instructed her to remove the encroachment within 3 days and make free encroachment, otherwise action will be taken as per HUDA byelaws.  Similarly vide letter no.1916 dated 6.5.2016 (Ex.C6) Estate Officer HUDA Sonepat has written a letter to Estate Manager Housing Board, Haryana, Sonepat  intimating him that the JE of his office has visited the site and found that the road in front of 46 GF LIG is 10.0 meter wide and is clear in full width.  The encroachment/violation made by the owner of 46 GF LIG in the premises of 45 GF.  The Estate Manager Housing Board Haryana Sonepat has written a letter no.1716 dated 20.5.2016 (Ex.C7) to the Estate Officer HUDA Sonepat intimating him that as per decision taken by the Govt. in the meeting held on 5.9.2005 under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Secretary, Haryana, it was decided that action against the misuse of residential premises/violation of zoning plan/building by laws and removal of encroachment etc.will be taken by HUDA. 

          We have also perused the instructions (Ex.C8) written by Chief Administration HUDA Panchkula to All the Zonal Administrators and Estate Officers, HUDA and it is mentioned in the said memo no.24079-99 dated 19.9.2005 that where hire purchase tenancy agreement has expired and conveyance deed has been executed, action against misuse of residential premises/violations of zoning plan/building byelaws etc will be taken by the HUDA in the housing board colonies existing in HUDA sectors/areas.

          So, from the material available on the case file, it is clearly established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 who even has failed to follow the instructions of his higher authorities and this fact is clear from the instructions as mentioned in memo no.24079-99 dated 19.9.2005.  Thus, it is held that the respondent no.1 has rendered deficient services to the complainant and accordingly, it is directed to the respondent no.1 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          As far as the removal of unauthorized construction or encroachment is concerned, the complainant can approach the civil court for getting necessary directions against the allottee of house no.46 GF LIG Sector 12, Sonepat by filing a civil suit, if he is advised or desire so.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

     Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 20.01.2017