Haryana

StateCommission

CC/193/2019

CHANDERBHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HSVP AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

23 Dec 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Consumer Complaint No. 193 of 2019

Date of Institution: 04.06.2019

Date of Decision: 23.12.2021

Chanderbhan S/o Sh. Tara Chand, R/o H.No.1389, New Housing Board Colony, Panipat

……... Complainant

Versus

1.       Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator

2.       Estate Officer, Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran, Panipat

……. Opposite Parties

ORDER

         

CORUM: - MR. RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

Present: - Mr. Pardeep Solath Advocate for Complainant

                 Mr. Sikander Bakshi Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

                   As per order dated 27.09.2021 contained in the letter No.1578, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

 

1.                Shorn of details the brief facts of the case are the complainant is running business under name & style of Shree Krishna Home Furnishing for his livelihood in an industrial unit which falls in the proposed Industrial Area Sector-28, Panipat. Adjoining to the plot of the complainant some unallotted and un-utilized land of HSVP (earlier HUDA) was lying vacant. The complainant moved an application to dated 19.03.2010 Chief Administrator HSVP with copy to Administrator, HSVP Rohtak to allot him the adjoining land as per the departmental rates, so that the said un-utilized and unplanned land can be utilized by the complainant which was otherwise of no use for anyone.  

 

2.                That the application of the complainant was considered by the Administrator, HSVP Rohtak and recommended for allotment of the adjoining land to the complainant to the OP No.1 vide letter memo No. A-III-8028 dated 23.06.2010 mentioning that the land is in zig zag shape and is left unplanned which cannot be utilized for any purpose. The OP No.1 vide endorsement No. UB-A-3-2013/41337 dated 30.10.2013 approved the allotment of the un-utilized land measuring 800 sqm. adjacent to the plot of the complainant @Rs.6500/- per sq. mtr. to the complainant.

                   The OP No.2 vide letter Sr. No. 14706 dated 20.11.2013 allotted the additional land adjacent to the plot No. 13, Sector-28, Panipat to the complainant @Rs.6500/- per sq. mtr. The total cost of the land was Rs.52,00,000/- (800x6500). The complainant was asked to deposit the same within 30 days. The complainant deposited Rs.52,00,000/- through 6 bank drafts from his bank i.e. Punjab & Sind Bank upto 18.12.2013 in the account of the OPs. After depositing the entire demanded amount, the complainant submitted letter to the OP No.2 vide diary No. 11826 dated 21.12.2013 for the demarcation of the land allotted to him.

 

3.       The complainant visited the office of OP No.2 several times for the demarcation & possession of the land allotted to him. However, the OPs kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or other. In the month of January, 2016, the complainant was surprised to receive letter bearing memo No. 9446-51 dated 31.12.2015 wherein it was alleged that the additional land allotted to the complainant was issued under fictitious signatures of Deputy Superintendent Sh. B.B. Taneja. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and the complainant was asked to appear on 13.01.2016 in the office of Administrator, HSVP, Faridabad.

          The complainant submitted detailed reply to the OPs on 13.01.2016 alongwith all requisite documents and stated that the allegations leveled against him are false & frivolous. The complainant did not commit any fraud and is an innocent person. It was also specifically stated in the reply that the address of M/s Jay Gee Overseas is wrongly mentioned in the letter dated 31.12.2015 and the complainant has no concern with the plot no.13 sector 28 Panipat in any manner. The OPs did not complete the enquiry within time and the complainant was kept hanging. The complainant submitted letter dated 03.10.2016 to the OP No.1 to segregate his file for the additional land from the file of M/s Jay Gee Overseas regarding the plot no.13 sector 28 Panipat as he has no concern with the same.

 

4.       The complainant visited the office of OPs again & again but of no use. Finally, the complainant filed application dated 23.02.2017 under RTI Act to give the details of the letter bearing memo No.14706 dated 20.11.2013 to find that whether the same is issued by the office of OP No.2 or not. The OP No.2 vide letter memo No. 2421 dated 28.03.2017 specifically admitted that the letter bearing memo No. 14706 dated 20.11.2013, whereby additional land was allotted to the complainant was issued by the office of OP No.2. The complainant acted bonafidely and even the letter dated 20.11.2013 is also proved to be issued by the OP No.2. Left with no option, the complainant submitted application dated 17.08.2017 received by OP No.2 vide diary No. 8390 for the refund of the amount of Rs.52,00,000/- deposited by him.

          The complainant applied for copy of the enquiry report regarding the allotment of adjacent land adjoining to the plot No. 13, Sector-28, Panipat through RTI Act application dated 10.02.2018. The complainant went to the office of Inquiry Officer-cum-Administrator, HSVP, Faridabad to supply the copy of enquiry report. The complainant specifically submitted vide letter dated 18.02.2018 that inspite of his 20 visits in the office, no satisfactory answer is given. The complainant stated that he has nothing to do plot No. 13, Sector-28, Panipat rather his case was of the adjoining land to the plot No.13. Therefore, he requested that the copy of enquiry report be sent to the office of OP No.1 at the earliest and the matter may kindly be resolved.

 

5.       That the complainant visited the office of OPs again & again to handover the possession of the land allotted to him or to refund the amount of Rs.52,00,000/- deposited by him on 18.12.2013. The complainant vide letter dated 26.03.2018 again requested the OP No.1 to refund him the amount of Rs.52,00,000/-; however, no heed is paid.

 The complainant waited for several months; however, the possession of the land has not been handed over inspite of paying the entire cost of the land. The complainant is running from post to pillar since almost 6 years and the possession of the land has not been handed over to him. The amount of Rs. 52 lacs deposited by the complainant has been used by the opposite parties for profit & gain. The complainant was shocked to find that since so many years the complainant was misguided & misinformed by the opposite parties.

 

6.                The complainant is at no fault and is a victim of departmental rivalry between officers. The complainant has been harassed without any justifiable reason and the OPs have deceived the complainant by alluring him to deposit Rs. 52.0 lacs in 30 days and then not delivering the possession of the same. The action of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and is also a great deficiency in service.

          The complainant is a senior citizen and not keeping good health. Due to inordinate delay on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had suffered not only financial losses but also suffered mental harassment & agony at the hands of OPs.

 

7.       Finally, the complainant filed present complaint with following prayer:

a)       impugned action of the OPs not handing over the vacant physical possession of the plot be set side and the Ops be directed to handover the vacant physical possession of the developed plot at the price of Rs.52,00,000/- as mentioned in the allotment letter alongwith compensation for non-delivery of possession for 6 years;

Or

          in the alternative opposite party may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.52,00,000/- paid by the complainant towards the payment of the price of the plot alongwith the interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment in the interest of justice under the facts and circumstances;

 

b)       Compensation for harassment caused and expenses incurred to the complainant that is Rs.5,00,000/- may also be granted to the complainant;

 

c)       Cost of proceedings that is Rs.1,00,000/- may also be awarded in the favour of the complainant.

 

d)       Litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- may also be awarded.

 

          The complainant adduced following evidence i.e.

                    Ex.C-1A         Evidence by way of affidavit of complainant

Ex.C-1            Application dated 19.03.2010                  

                        Ex.C-2            Letter Administrator HUDA, Rohtak 23.06.2010                      

                        Ex.C-3            Letter Chief Administrator HUDA dt. 30.10.2013

            Ex.C-4            Letter from E.O. HUDA Panipat dated 20.11.2013

            Ex.C-5            Letter by complainant dated 21.12.2013            

Ex.C-6            Letter Inquiry Officer dated 31.12.2015

Ex.C-7            Reply by complainant dated 13.01.2016            

Ex.C-8            Letter by complainant dated 03.10.2016

Ex.C-9            RTI reply dated 28.03.2017                       

Ex.C-10          Letter by complainant dated 17.08.2017            

Ex.C-11          RTI Application dated 10.02.2018                       

Ex.C-12          Letter by complainant dated 16.02.2018            

Ex.C-13          RTI reply dated 06.03.2018                       

Ex.C-14          Refund application dated 26.03.2018    

 

5.                 The OPs appeared through counsel Sh. Sikander Bakshi and submitted written statement. The OPs submitted that the land in question is wrongly allotted to the complainant by unauthorized officer. It is submitted that the complainant in collusion with some officials of the OPs managed to get issue allotment letter dated 31.10.2013 regarding the additional land adjacent to industrial plot No.13, Sector-28, HUDA, Panipat directly from headquarter of the OPs. On the basis of said fraudulent allotment letter, the complainant got succeeded to allot 800 sq. mtr. additional land vide allotment letter dated 20.11.2013 issued by OP No.2 and deposited Rs.52.00 lacs with the OPs. Thereafter, the Directors of Jay Gee Overseas Pvt. Ltd. who are owners of plot No. 13, Sector-28, HUDA, Panipat made a complaint against the allotment of above said additional land adjacent to their plot in the favour of complainant. After coming to know this fact the OP No.2 vide letter memo No. 495 dated 09.01.2015 made a complaint to the OP No.1. Thereafter, the OP No.1 vide letter dated 01.12.2015 appointed Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad as Inquiry Officer. After conducting thorough regular enquiry, the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad submitted enquiry report dated 03.08.2018 and observed that as per original record of the headquarter i.e. OP No.1 no such allotment letter dated 31.10.2013 regarding allotment of additional land adjacent to the plot No. 13, Sector-28, HUDA, Panipat was issued in the favour of present complainant. It was stated that the complainant in collusion with the officials of the OPs got prepared the forged & fraudulent letter in his favour. It is also submitted by the OPs that they have decided to forfeit the amount of Rs.52.00 lacs deposited by the complainant and have also registered an FIR No.348 dated 18.11.2020 at PS Sector-13-17, Panipat against their employees and also complainant. The OPs prayed that the complaint be dismissed being based on false & frivolous grounds.  

          The OPs lead following evidence:

Ex.OP-1/A     Evidence by way of affidavit

Ex.OP-1         Enquiry report dated 03.08.2018

Ex.OP-2         List of accused in FIR No.348 dated 18.11.2020

          I have heard both parties at length and also gone through the record of the case file. It is an admitted fact that the complainant requested the OPs vide letter dated 19.03.2010 for the allotment of the adjacent unutilized land and he was allotted the land vide letter dated 20.11.2013 after several correspondence within office of OPs. The complainant also deposited Rs.52.00 lacs in the HUDA. As per the enquiry report of the OPs dated 03.08.2018, the employees of HUDA namely Smt. Santosh Mehta, A.E.O. (Retd.), Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Accountant, Sh. B.S. Taneja, Superintendent (Retd.), Sh. Sham Sunder, Deputy Superintendent, Sh. Satish Kumar, J.E. and Sh. Karambir, Chowkidar have been held guilty for issuing letters and directing the complainant to deposit Rs.52.00 lacs in the HUDA. It is also undisputed fact that all the letters issued by OPs are having correct dispatch numbers and thus cannot be called as forged letters though they might have been issued by the unauthorized officer. In his enquiry report dated 03.08.2018, the Inquiry Officer has specifically recommended to refund the amount of Rs.52.00 lacs immediately to the complainant so as to avoid further litigation/complication. The inquiry officer has nowhere held the complainant guilty of any fraud or mis-representation.

          It is also an acknowledged fact that the possession of the land in question was never been handed over to the complainant though he has deposited Rs.52.00 lacs on 18.12.2013. No loss whatsoever has been caused to the HUDA (OPs). The OPs were sleeping over the matter since last 7 years and it appears that after the filing of the present complaint, in order to save their own employees, they have registered FIR No.348 dated 18.11.2020 at PS Sector-13-17, Panipat. There is no provision or authority to the OPs to forfeit the amount of Rs.52.00 lacs deposited by the complainant. The OPs cannot bypass the provisions of law and make their own rules. The complainant is a senior citizen and apparently cheated by the officers of the OPs. The complainant deposited the market price of the land as demanded by the OPs and thus has no fault. The act & conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount deposited by him with interest.

                   In view of above, the present complaint is allowed with cost and following relief is granted to the complainant: -     

1. the OPs are directed to refund amount of Rs.52.00 lacs with interest @12% per annum to the complainant from the date of deposit till its realization within 45 days;
2. the complainant is entitled for lumpsum compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs (Rs. Three Lacs Only);
3. complainant is also entitled for litigation charges of Rs.50,000/-;

                   In case, there is breach in the compliance of this order within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be liable to get the interest @18% per annum upon the decreed amount for the default period. It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act would also be attractable.

 

December 23^rd, 2021                                             Ram Singh Chaudhary

                                                                             Judicial Member

                                                                             Addl. Bench