Haryana

StateCommission

A/336/2023

SUDARSHANA BATRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HSVP - Opp.Party(s)

PAVINDER SINGH BEDI

07 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                                                                                                                              First Appeal No.336 of 2023

                                                Date of Institution:07.04.2023

Date of order: 07.04.2023

Smt. Sudarshana Batra W/o Devinder Batra R/o H.No.193, Sector-31, Faridabad (Haryana).

…..Appellant

Versus

Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran, through its Estate Officer, Sector-12, Faridabad, Haryana.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

         

 

Present:-    Mr.P.S.Bedi, Advocate for theappellant.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.336of 2023 has been filed against the order dated 21.03.2023of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad(In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.529of 2021, which wasallowed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are thatinitially a residential plot No.265, Sector 31, Faridabad was allotted jointly on free hold to one Smt. Tara Dingra W/o Sh. P.R.Dhingra and Kumari Daman D/oShri P.R.Dhingra and the said P.R.Dhingravide allotment letter No. A-31/99-115 dated 25.01.1999 issued by the opposite party (OP).  However since this area was not developed as projected, the initial allotteeshad filed a consumer complaint No.273 of 2005 before District Forum, Faridabad on 22.04.2005 for some alternative plot, which was allowed and concerned authorities of OP were directed to allot residential  plot No.193, Sector 31, Faridabad for similar price  and also directed it to deliver physical possession of the same. The OP implemented the said order dated 19.07.2005 and allotted the alternative plot  No.193, Sector 31, Faridabad instead of plot No.265, Sector 31, Faridabad. The initial allottee has deposited an amount of Rs.2,71,689/- immediately after receipt of intimation from the OP, but on transfer application of the allottee, the said plot was transferred by the OP to  Daman Nagpal W/o Radhe Nagpal . On 31.10.2007, the OP delivered physical possession of the said plot No.193 to Daman Nagpal.  On 22.11.2007, Daman Nagpal also submitted a transfer permission application before the HUDA  for transfer of the said residential plot No.193, Sector 31, Faridabad in the name of complainant Smt.Sudarshana Batra.  On 12.02.2008, the OP issued transfer letter bearing memo No.7000 with regard to re-allotment of plot No.193 measuring 358 sq. yards Sector 31 Faridabad in favour of complainant. Thereafter the complainant  raised construction  as per standard zoning plan and also got electricity connection for the said house from the competent authority in the year 2011. Since, 2011, the complainant also paid property tax to the Municipal Corporation Faridabad.  OP came out with a policy on 05.03.2019 for regularizing the constructions and  for issuing occupation certificate in respect of constructed house vide MemoNo.A-6-UB-2019/42373-74 dated 05.03.2019.   The HSVP had directed the estate officers to issue completion certificate in favour of the allottees who have already completed construction of their houses. The case of the complainant was covered by the said policy and she was ready to deposit the requisite fee for the issuance of occupancy certificate and to bear the cost of stamp duty for the execution of conveyance deed in her favour.  On 16.02.2019, the complainant submitted representation before Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula for amicable settlement of the issue and to regularizethe construction in terms of police instructions issued vide memo No. A-6-UB-2019/42373-74 dated 05.03.2019 of the OP.  The complainant requested the OP to execute the conveyance deed, but to no avail.   On 09.12.2010, the OP vide memo No.8698 issued show cause notice about unauthorized construction in backyard area. On 29.12.2020, the complainant duly replied to the show cause notice. Thus there being  negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, hence the complaint.

3.      In its written version, OP submitted thatthe matter had already been decided finally by the State Commission on  17.02.2011 and revision petition filed by the complainant  on 15.06.2011 has also been decided on 30.06.2021 and same had been rejected against the complainant and in favour of the OP,  so the present complaint was  not maintainable. It was admitted that District Forum, Faridabad had announced an award on 19.07.2005 in favour of the complainant and in compliance of said award an alternate plot No.193, Sector 31 was allotted to her. The order dated 19.07.2005 was challenged by the OP before the State Commission, which was allowed by this Commission on 17.02.2011.   Against that order, a revision petition was filed by the complainant but the same was withdrawn by the complainant on 23.05.2013.  Another revision petition was filed by the complainant on 15.06.2021 before the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh, which was also dismissed on 30.06.2021. The OP had withdrawn the possession of the plot No.193 Sector 31, Faridabad from her vide letter No.13397/13400 dated 06.12.2021. Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  Objections of locus standi and for want of cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint as prayed for.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Faridabadhas allowed the complaint, which is as under:-

“14.   After perusal of the evidence, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed.

15.    Opposite Party is directed to : (i) as per the order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  vide order dated 11.05.2022 that “ the Non-applicant shall not auction, allot, alienate, transfer or create third party rights in respect of plot No.193, Sector-31, Faridabad.

(ii)      Opposite party cannot cancelled after sanctioned the revised site plan and the complainant has also sanctioned the site plan earlier and paid the due amount already to the opposite party and spent a huge amount  of Rs.3 crores earning of her whole life on the construction of the above said house.

(iii)     opposite party is directed not to seal the constructed house. Complainant is at liberty to complete the house and get completion in due course of law.

(iv)    Maximum opposite party can charge collector rate of the plot at the time allotment i.e. in the year 1999 and adjust the deposited money already  paid to the Opposite party-HUDA and give interest on the paid amount.

(v)     overhaul the account of the complainant and issue the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant after taking the dues, if any, in accordance with law. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.  In case of non-compliance, opposite party will pay compensation  for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only) to the complainant.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal for compensation towards mental harassment, pain, agony and loss of opportunity. Added thereto she is seeking interest @ 24% on deposited amount and litigation charges.

6.      This arguments has been advanced by Sh.P.S.Bedi, learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire record of the appeal had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that initially the plot No.265-P, Sector 31, Faridabad was allotted jointly on free hold basis to Smt. Tara Dingra W/o Sh. P.R.Dhingra and Kumari Daman D/o Shri P.R.Dhingra vide allotment letter No. A-31/99-115 dated 25.01.1999 issued by the opposite party (OP).  Learned counsel further argued that for the lack of development of the site, initial allottee had filed a consumer complaint No.273 of 2005 before District Forum, Faridabad, which was allowed and OP was directed to allot residential  plot No.193, Sector 31, Faridabad in lieu of the original  and also to put them into possession of the same. The OP implemented the said order dated 19.07.2005 and allotted the alternative plot  No.193, Sector 31, Faridabad measuring 300 sq. mtr. instead of plot No.265, Sector 31, Faridabad. The initial allottees hadalso deposited an amount of Rs.2,71,689/- immediately after receipt of intimation from the OP and lateron as per transfer application of the allottee, the said plot was transferred by the OP to  Daman Nagpal W/o Radhe Nagpal.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that on 31.10.2007, the OP delivered physical possession of the said plot No.193 to Daman Nagpal   and on 22.11.2007, Mr. Daman Nagpal also submitted a transfer permission application before the HUDA  for transfer of the said residential plot No.193, Sector 31, Faridabad in the name of complainant Smt.Sudarshana Batra and on 12.02.2008, the OP issued transfer letter bearing memo No.7000 with regard to re-allotment of plot No.193 measuring 358 sq. yards Sector 31 Faridabad in favour of complainant. Thereafter the complainant  raised construction  as per standard zoning plan and she even got electricity connection for the said house from the electricity department in the year 2011. Since, 2011, the complainant has been paying property tax to the Municipal Corporation Faridabad.  In 2019 OP came with a policy for regularizing the construction violation and for issuing of occupation certificate in respect of constructed house vide MemoNo.A-6-UB-2019/42373-74 dated 05.03.2019.   The case of the complainant was covered under the said policy, she was also ready to deposit the requisite fee for the issuance of occupancy certificate and to bear the cost of stamp duty for the execution of conveyance deed in her favour, but, the Ops did not register her conveyance deed.

9.      Perusal of the impugned order shows that  the HSVP authorities  have alleged before the District Forum, Faridabad that earlier the same commission had announced an award on 19.07.2005 in favour of predecessor of the complainant, who after purchasing the plot in question from Daman Nagpal in the year 2007, she constructed the building as per zoning plan of OP and got it transferred in her favourobtained due permission of OP dated 12.02.2008. Since, the complainant has constructed the house as per zoning plan of HSVP and had even deposited the amount after getting the notice of EO HUDA dated 06.08.2021.  It is quite surprising when all these developments were taking place one after the other  whey the OP did not cancel the plot allotment in the year 2011 when the State Commission has allowed the appeal but instead of cancelling the plot in question in the year 2011, the HSVP authorities remained busy in allowing her so many approvals.

10.    Further it is quite apparent that various administrative authorities have ordered resumption of the disputed plot on a sole premise that it was none other but the original allottees of the plot number 265 Sector 31 had during pleadings of the previous complaint No.273 of 2005 happened to plead  and ask for refund of entire amount so deposited by them but at the same time in those very pleadings itself they had asked for allotment of an alternative plot as well.  Finally the then learned District Commission has also observed that those complainants had asked for refund simply out of frustration especially when the then Ops could not develop the are where plot NO.265 in Sector 31 Faridabad was located. This is how  the District Commission after ignoring their plea for refund directed then Ops to allot some alternative plot in lieu of plot No.265 Sector 31, and thus Plot No.193, Sector 31 was re-allotted to them. Well things did not stop there rather thereafter the Ops even expressed their due concurrence in allowing the original allottees to transfer the same re-allotted plot No.193 Sector 31 Faridabad twice which ultimately brought complainant/appellant into picture. Further more Ops even allowed  appellant to raised construction at the site and have been accepting various amounts from her from time to time.  It was thereafter when much water has already flown that one fine morning Ops issued a  show cause notice on the basis of series of administrative orders thereby cancelling the allotment and ultimately resuming it altogether which obviously was assailed by complainant vide this second complaint culminating into this impugned order. Since it was only after taking into consideration all these facts that, the learned District commission in its own wisdom has awarded some reliefs and some others were withheld and were denied to the complainant/appellant which does not call for any such interference at this end at least at this stage.

11.    Moreover despite several documents having been produced before learned District Commission not even a single documents has been attached with this appeal by the appellant, therefore this commission has to have only some idea about the same of  course from the copies of complaint and that of written version submitted would be respondent department then Ops. Well I just failto understand as to what the dire need for the appellant to have rushed to prefer this appeal even without waiting for submitting her supporting documents as such depriving this commission to even have a cursory look thereof.So this appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed primarily for all these reasons.

12.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

13.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.      File be consigned to record room.

 

Date of order: 7^thApril 2023                                  (S. P. Sood)                                                                                                                          Judicial Member                

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)