Respondent/complainant was allotted plot No.960, Sector 8, Kurukshetra for a tentative price of Rs.4,26,260/- vide allotment letter dated 21.5.2001.  Petitioners offered possession of the plot vide letter dated 21.8.2003 without providing the basic amenities like water, sewerage, electricity and roads.  Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that the letter of possession dated 21.8.2003 was merely a paper possession without completing any development works in the area where the plot was situated. 

-2-

Petitioner on being served filed its Written Statement and took the stand that all the development works had been carried out. 

The District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings, evidence and the inspection which it had carried out regarding plot No.943 of the same Sector, held that as on 20.1.2005 development works like water, sewerage, electricity and roads       were not completed.   Possession of the plot No.943 had also been offered to the allottee of that plot on the same date on which the possession was offered to the respondent in the present case.  District Forum allowed the complaint and held that the petitioner had offered the possession without providing the basic amenities like water, sewerage, electricity and roads.  The District Forum recorded the following findings:

          “We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and have gone through the record available on file carefully.  The contention of OPs is that the possession has already been offered vide letter dated 21.8.2003 after completing the development work.  OPs have placed on record the letter dated 5.5.2003 of Exceutive Engineers, HUDA.  Ambala to Estate Officer, HUDA Kurukshetra in respect of development works i.e. roads, water supply and severage

-3-

etc. and letter dated 29.6.2004 of S.D.E. Electrical provides that L.T. Line has been erected in front of 1187 plots of Sector-8.  Copy of this letter has been forwarded to Estate Officer, HUDA Kurukshetra vide Endst. No.665 dated 6.7.2004.  Prima-facie this letter proves that before 29.6.2004 there was no electrification development or electricity line in Sector-8.  Thereafter, the offer of possession on 21.8.2003 is wrong because it has been offered without completing development work and without erecting the electricity line.  We have already decided a case of same sector having plot No.943 of KRishan Baldev Kaushik vide order dated 20.1.2005 and in that case this Forum visited the site and as per order dated 20.1.2005 regarding Plot No.943 the site was inspected on 13.10.2004 and it was observed that water supply and sewerage line were in existence which were laid down likely earlier to the visit of this Forum as the Massons were working on the main hole.  The road was carpeted recently and the machinery as like road roller were still parked on the site.  So far that matter of electricity line is concerned, the electricity poles were installed and there was no conductor wires on the poles.  Only one earth wire was laid on the poles.  In that case it has already been proved that the offer of possession on 21.8.2003 was without completion of development work.  In case of Krishan Baldev Kaushik, this Forum ha already directed

-4-

the OPs not to recover any interest on the balance tentative price of plot No.943 Sector – 8 till 31.12.204 and offer the possession a fresh with confirmed date when the development work has been completed.  The present complaint is also regarding same sector and the condition of development work cannot be different than the date of inspection in other case.  Moreover, OPs have not placed on record any documents proving the completion of development work as the letter dated 29.6.2004 pf SDE Electrical is not tenable in view of inspection of this Forum in other case.  On perusal of statement of account, it reveals that OPs have charged interest on the balance installments w.e.f. 21.8.2003.  This statement of account further provides that interest has been charged compounded which is not permissible and the possession interest has been charged @ 11% p.a. which is also not permissible as the rate of interest has been advised by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide several judgments to calculate on simple basis and not more than 10%.  It is pertinent to mention here that HUDA has already reduced the rate of interest @ 9% p.a.  Therefore, the excess rate of interest and charged compounded is totally wrong and illegal which is hereby set aside.”   

-5-

          On the basis of findings recorded, the District Forum directed the petitioner not to recover the interest up to 31.12.2004 and refund the amount of interest already charged up to 31.12.2004; to offer the possession afresh with confirmed date of completion of developments works.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has dismissed the same by observing thus:

       “The main dispute between the parties is with respect to non-completion of development works in the area where the plot of complainant is situated.  In this regard there are certain documents on record, which prove that till the offer of possession of the plot on 21.8.2003 the development works in the area were not completed.  Letter dated 29.6.2004 from the office of Sub Divisional Engineer (Electrical) proved that till 29.6.2004 the electrification work in the area was not completed.  The District Forum in the impugned order has relied upon its observation in another complaint which was in respect of plot No.943 of same sector and in that case the site was inspected by the Members/President of the District Forum on 20.1.2005

-6-

and at that time it was found that water supply sewerage and electrification were not completed.  The possession of the above said plot was also offered on the same date on which the possession was offered in the present case.

       In view of the facts and circumstances of the present and evidence adduced on record, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.  It is well proved on record that on the date of offer of possession of the plot to the complainant the development works in the area were not complete and as such the complainant is entitled to the relief as granted by the District Forum.”

          It would be seen from the facts narrated above that the President of the District Forum and its Members had carried out an inspection with regard to plot No.943 in the same Sector on 20.1.2005 and found that necessary development works had not been carried out.  Based on the said report, the District Forum allowed the complaint and held that the basic amenities like water, sewerage and electrification had not been provided by the petitioner. 

-7-

            We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  There is no infirmity in the impugned order.  Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.