Haryana

Karnal

CC/251/2016

Kusum Lata - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Gupta

16 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.251 of 2016

                                                      Date of instt. 29.08.2016

                                                      Date of decision 16.07.2018

 

Kusum Lata wife of Shri Subhash Chander, resident of outside Jattan Gate, Karnal.

…….Complainant.

                                                Versus              

 

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrative Officer.

2. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 12, Karnal through its Estate Officer.

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Rajiv Gupta Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Gaurav Singh Advocate for OPs.

                                     

ORDER: 

                  

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that OPs had made an advertisement in the newspaper in the year of 2004 and invited an application for allotment of residential plot in sector-16, Urban Estate, Karnal to the General Category as well as farmers (outsees quota) and in response of the said advertisement, the complainant purchased a brochure and made an application no.32849 for allotment of plot of 4 marlas in sector 16, Urban Estate Karnal under outsees quota and deposited a sum of Rs.19,663/- vide draft no.954358 dated 16.04.2004 drawn from UCO Bank, Karnal with the office of OP no.2 i.e. 10% of the total value of the plot and the total value of the plot in the said broacher was Rs.1,96,630/-. Complainant made application for the allotment of plot under General Category and under oustees quota. There was only one application of the complainant and draw was held on 21.10.2004 and the category of the complainant mentioned in the list of the complainant issued by the OP as General and the complainant made an objection that the application of the complainant shall not considered under General Category or in oustees and the application of the complainant was kept pending for decision of competent authority and one plot was reserved for the complainant till the final disposal of the application. It is further alleged that no plot was allotted to the complainant in response of his application no.32849 and ultimately, the complainant filed a civil suit before Civil Court at Karnal vide civil suit no.102 of 2008 and the said civil suit was decreed on 21.4.2010 and thereafter the OP filed an appeal and the same was dismissed and now they have filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh but no stay has been granted by the Hon’ble High Court. Now allotment letter was issued by the OP of the plot no.1043-P, sector 16, Urban Estate Karnal on 18.5.2015 and in the said allotment letter, the total cost of the plot is mentioned by the OP as Rs.9,18,000/- and 10% of the preferential amount is added as Rs.91,800/- and the amount of Rs.19,663/- which was deposited by the complainant in response of advance vide application no.32849 has been adjusted in the said allotment letter. OPs raised a illegal demand and the plot was allotted to the complainant in response of the previous advertisement and application no.32849 and at that time, the cost of the plot was Rs.1,96,630/- and the complainant is fighting the case against the OPs and now the OPs had allotted a plot for an amount of Rs.9,18,000/- instead of Rs.1,96,630/- and the said allotment letter issued by the OPs regarding the new rate is totally illegal and from 2004 till today, no enhancement has been made by any competent authority.  It is further alleged that OPs are bound to allot the plot to the complainant as per the rate prevailing in the year 2004 when application was invited and due to the illegal act of the OP, the complainant was dragged into a litigation and ultimately the OP was ordered for allotment of plot but OP again charged the rate from the complainant. At present there is no basis of charging the excess rate from the complainant and the plot was allotted to the complainant in response of application no.32849 and rate must be prevailed in the year 2004 and the OPs are liable to compensated the complainant for increase of construction cost, harassment, mental agony etc. After receiving the allotment letter, the complainant moved an application to the OP why a huge rate is charged from the complainant but no response was made by the OP and the complainant has been left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; complaint is premature and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had applied vide application no.32899 under General Category and not under the oustees category. It is further submitted that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant under oustees quota scheme in compliance of Civil Court decree in execution titled as Kusum Lata Versus HUDA which was decided by the court of Shri Akshay Chaudhary, learned Civil Judge, Karnal in which the counsel for the complainant gave statement that he di not want to proceed with the execution petition being satisfied with the same and hence said execution petition was disposed of by the learned Civil Judge on 27.05.2015 and if the petitioner was having any objection against the rate of the plot in question in that event she should file objections but she h as not raised any objection meaning thereby that she was fully satisfied with the compliance report submitted by the OPs hence now complainant is stopped to file the present complaint by her own act and conduct and principles of resjudicata is applicable against the complainant. Therefore, in the light of above facts this Forum has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide this application. RSA regarding previous litigation in which plot was allotted to the complainant has already been dismissed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh vide order dated 12.08.2016 and the competent authority of HUIDA has decided to file SLP against the said order, which is under process. It is further submitted that the OPs have charged the price of the plot as per the value fixed by HUDA during the year 2014-2015 as the application was allotted the plot on 18.05.2015. It is further submitted that complainant has also filed an another petition on the same cause of action before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Karnal under section 20 (c) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the award made by that court is final and the same can be challenged by filing of writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. However, the complainant instead of filing of Writ petition against the said order file the present petition which is legally not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 1.3.2018

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Harish Kumar Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 1.6.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that complainant applied for the allotment of a plot with the OP vide application no.32849 and deposited Rs.19663/- i.e. 10% of the value of the plot vide DD no. no.954358 dated 16.04.2004

7.             According to the complainant, he applied under general category and under oustee quota but the OP mentioned his category as general, so the complainant made objection and his application was kept pending whereas as per OP, the complainant had applied under general category and not under oustees quota, so his name was mentioned in general category. The draw was held on 21.10.2014.

8.             It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant filed a civil suit no.102 of 2008 which was decreed. It is further pertinent to mention here that the complainant filed an execution petition and the plot in question was allotted to the complainant under oustees quota scheme in compliance of civil court decree vide allotment letter dated 18.05.2015. The said plot was allotted for an amount of Rs.9,18,000/-.

9.             Now the complainant filed the present complaint that the OP be directed to charge the previous rate of the plot in question as was prevailing at the time of making the application for allotment of plot.

10.            It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has file the execution petition for the compliance of the decree passed by the Civil Court, Karnal. During the pendency of execution petition, the complainant received the allotment dated 18.5.2015 issued by the OP and after receipt of allotment letter, the complainant had withdrawn the execution petition after making a statement in this regard. The OP has placed on the file Ex.R3 the withdrawal order dated 27.5.2015 including the statement of the learned counsel for the complainant dated 27.5.2015. It is further pertinent to mention here that the tentative price of the plot in question was Rs.8,64,641.25 has been mentioned in the allotment letter dated 18.05.2015 Ex.R-2. After going through the said allotment letter dated 18.5.2015 which include the value of the plot in question, the complainant has withdrawn the execution petition being fully satisfied. From these facts it is clear that the complainant was fully satisfied with the price of the plot in question. It she was not satisfied with the same, then she might had raise the objections at the that time and was not supposed to withdraw the execution petition. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. Moreover, the present complaint is barred by the principle of resjudicata also.

11.            It is further pertinent to mention here that the complainant has filed an application under section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the said application of the complainant has been dismissed vide order dated 6.6.2016 Ex.R4 on the  above mentioned ground that the complainant has accepted the allotment letter on the basis of price prevailing during 2015-2016 and withdraw the execution petition. It is also mentioned in the said order dated 6.6.2016 that if she (complainant) was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 18.5.2015, she could pursue the matter in the execution petition. When the matter has been decided by the one authority cannot be raised again before other authority/Forum. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable on this ground also.

12.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.07.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                     (Anil Sharma)

                          Member