Haryana

Ambala

CC/8/2018

Sunita Khurana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Huda - Opp.Party(s)

Shubham Aggarwal

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                                Complaint case no.        : 08 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         : 02.01.2018                                                              

                                                             Date of decision   : 16.10.2018

 

 

 Sunita Khurana, Aged 55 years, W/o Sh. Pardeep Khurana, R/o 914, Sector-9, Ambala.

    ……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  Estate Office, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Office:- SCO-7-8, Shopping Complex, Sector-7, Ambala City.

2.  Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                   Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

                            

Present:        Sh. Rohit Jain, counsel for complainant.

 Sh. Arvind Goel, counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant has purchased a plot no.2370,  Sector-9, Ambala City and the sale deed of the same was duly executed vide registered sale deed no.351 dated 20.04.2011. The land of the aforesaid purchased plot of the complainant was transferred by the Ops to Northern Railway. The complainant was told by the Ops that he will be allotted another plot in lieu of the plot purchased by him and accordingly on 24.08.2016 complainant received a alternative allotment letter from the office of above OP No.1 vide memo no.1957 dated 24.08.2016 intimating him that he has been allotted plot no.688, Sector-10, Urban Estate, Ambala City through mini draw of plots held on 19.08.2016 in lieu of his plot no.2370, Sector-9, Ambala City. The complainant was also informed vide this allotment letter that the rates, terms and conditions of the allotted plot/house as laid down in this office memo no.5244 dated 17.05.2011 will remain the same. After taking possession of the alternative plot, the complainant received following notices for payment of enhanced compensation from the office of the above OP No.1:-

S.No.	Memo No.	Date of Memo	Amount
1	EO/AMB/2017/238	27.01.2017	45,180/-
2	EO/AMB/2017/239	27.01.2017	1,11,464/-
3	EO/AMB/B2017/240	27.01.2017	40,147/-
4	ZO0004/EO015/UE025/DELET/00000002629	23.05.2017	3,46,680/-

 

The complainant after receiving  the first three notices visited the office of the OP No.1 adjusted the already paid enhancement amount of her earlier allotted plot in sector-9 in account the of alternative allotted plot and calculated an amount of Rs.39,704/- as outstanding, payable  by complainant for first three enhancements of his alternative allotted plot. The complainant flatly told the OP No.1 that the said enhancements were beyond the terms of the letter of offer of alternative allotment but as the per the assurance given to him by OP No.1, deposited an amount of Rs. 39,704/- & Rs.3,46,680/- dated 23.03.2017  & 15.06.2017 respectively. The complainant moved an application  dated 01.08.2017 to the office of the OP No.1 for refunding  his excess paid amount of Rs. 39,704 and 3,46,680 totaling to Rs. 3,86,384/- and a reduction of Rs. 1,02,690/- ie. Refund of excess paid total amount of Rs. 2,83,694/- however the OP No.1 paid no heed to the genuine request of complainant. After that the complainant has abided every term and condition of the allotment but now the Ops are denying the terms and conditions of alternative allotment. There is deficiency in services on the part of Ops as well as unfair trade practices. The complainant is a victim of harassment and mental agony caused by the act and conduct of both the above Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notices, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable and no jurisdiction. On merits, OPs stated that the in memo no.1957 dated 24.08.2016  it is mentioned that  the rates and all other terms and conditions  as laid down in this office memo no.5244 dated 17.05.2011  will remain the same and in memo no.5244 dated 17.05.2011 it is specifically mentioned that “the above price is tentative  to the extent that any enhancement  in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the land Acquisition  Act shall also be payable proportionately as determined  by the authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within thirty days of its demand”, this shows that the Ops will charge enhancement from the allotte. The present demand of enhancement of amount is strictly as per policy of the HUDA bearing memo no. HUDA-ACCTTS-ACCTT-II-2013/43644-45 dated 26.11.2013 and settled law passed by the Hon’ble High Court. As such Ops had demanded the enhanced compensation mentioned in the complaint is correct and as per terms and conditions of the HUDA and as per law. Thus, there is no deficiency of the service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-16 and close her evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-8 and close their evidence.

4.                We have heard both the counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is admitted fact that OP No.1 has allotted the plot no.668, Sector-10, Urban Estate, Ambala City vide bearing memo no. 1957 dated 24.08.2016 as per Annexure  C-2/R-1 in lieu of the plot No. 2370, Sector-9, Ambala City. It is mentioned in the above Annexure the rate and all other terms and conditions will remain the same (i.e. of the earlier allotted plot) as laid down in the re-allotment letter bearing no.5244 dated 17.05.2011 of plot No.2370 Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala. The grievance of the complainant is that OPs cannot charge the enhancement amount of alternative plot because terms and conditions are same of the first allotment plot and complainant further having the grievance that Ops have allotted the lesser area as compared to the plot earlier allotted to the complainant and Ops are also liable to refund the excess amount taken by them i.e. Rs. 48195(2.7sq.m. @17.850 per sq.m). It is also admitted fact that complainant has already deposited the enhancement amount to the OP No.1 Rs. 39,704/- + Rs. 3,46,680/- total amount Rs. 3,86,384/- and OP No.1 has adjusted the amount Rs.1,02,690/-(enhancement of the Sector-9).

6.                The grievance of the complainant is that Ops have illegally charged the excess amount Rs. 2,83,694/-(346384-102690) from the complainant and she is entitled the  refund the same alongwith interest from the date of deposit.   

7.                Now, question arises before us whether the Op No.1 can take the enhancement amount of alternative plot or not. The counsel for the Ops has argued that the Ops have adjusted the enhancement amount of plot no. 2370, Sector-9 into the enhancement amount of plot no. 668, Sector-10, Ambala. As per record the complainant has paid enhancement amount Rs. 3,86,684/- of plot No.668, Sector-10 (alternative plot) and Department have adjusted the Rs.1,02,690/- (enhancement amount of Sector-9)  and excessive amount Rs. 2,83,694/-  has rightly paid by the complainant. The counsel for the OP No.1 is relying upon terms and conditions of the previous allotment letter no. 5244 dated 17.05.2011 of plot no. 2370, Sector-9 in which clause 3 is important as under “the above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the land acquisition act shall also be payable proportionately, as determined by the authority”.

8.                          In view of the above clause, the purchaser has to pay enhancement amount time to time which is awarded by competent authority and as per Annexure C-4 to C-6 these memos itself shows that enhancement amount demanded in alternative plots allotted in alternative sectors by the Ops and Ops also amend the policy in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.2759/13 title as Mahender Pal Jain Vs. HUDA  wherein it was stated that in case of enhancement of the price due to enhancement of acquisition cost, the said enhancement with the charged at the rate of sector where  the alternative plot has been allotted. The Hon’ble High Court further has ordered that  charging the enhanced price of the sector where the alternative allotment is to be made is fair and reasonable. Therefore, it was stated in the Hon’ble High Court that necessary modification in the policy/instructions in this regard will be made by HUDA. Accordingly, in supersession of the policy/ instructions issued vide letter no.27161-84 dated 05.06.2013 and also clarified as under:-

1. As per  above said instructions dated 05.06.2013, it was decided that in case of allotment of alternative plot in adjoining/different sector, enhanced price shall be charged of the sector where original plot was allotted because allotment of alternative plot is on the same term and conditions.
2. Some of the allottees filed civil writ petitions in the Hon’ble High Court stating that they are not liable to pay enhancement of the original sector because they are no longer allottes of that sector. These writ petitions were clubbed with CWP No.2759 of 2013 and during the course of hearing it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in case of allotment of alternative plot in different sector, enhanced price should be charged of the sector where alternative plot has been allotted to the allottees.
3. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble High Court, it has been decided that henceforth in all cases where alternative plot is allotted in different sector, enhanced price shall be charged of the sector where alternative plot has been allotted. This decision has also been endorsed by the Hon’ble High Court in the order dated 08.08.2013 passed in CWP No.2759 of 2013.

9.                The Ops have amended the policy as per the  judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in case title Mahender Kumar Jain Vs. HUDA and High Court has observed that in case of allotment of alternative plot in difference sector enhanced price can be charged where alternative plot has been allotted to the allottee.

The judgment Mahender Pal Jain (Supra) squarely covered the facts of the present case. Moreover, there is no documents on file that complainant has paid the enhancement amount under protest at the time of depositing the amount. Even then complainant has sent the notice for refund of enhancement after a period of more than one year from the date of allotment which was sent after though.

10.              In view of the above discussion, we are the view that the Ops have rightly charged the enhancement amount of Sector-10(alternative plot) and Ops have adjusted the amount of enhancement in lieu of the enhancement of Sector-9. So far regard the charging the excess price of the alternative plot as alternative plot was lesser in area about 2.7sq.m. The above said claim of the complainant is not sustainable because alternative plot was allotted through mini draw of plots held on 19.08.2016 and accepted the same without protest. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Thus, the complainant is not entitled any relief. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on : 16.10.2018

 

 

 

                   (Dr. Sushma Garg)                            (D.N. ARORA)

                                   Member                                       President