STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 11.09.2018
Date of final hearing: 12.09.2024
Date of pronouncement: 27.11.2024
First Appeal No.1038 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Estate Officer, HUDA Complex, Sector-13, Hisar.
....Appellant
Versus
Moman Ram aged 61 years, S/o Sh. Kanshi Ram, R/o Village and Post Office Siswal, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar.
…..Respondent
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member
Argued by:- Mr. B.S. Beniwal, counsel for appellant.
Mr. Kunal Garg, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 122 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Challenge in this Appeal No.1038 of 2018 filed by appellant/HUDA has been invited to legality of order dated 30.03.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Hisar (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.155 of 2017. Complainant’s complaint has been allowed.
3. Factual matrix: Complainant purchased Plot No.2546, Sector-14P-II, Hisar from its previous owner i.e. Smt. Indira W/o Sh. Girdhari, Sector-4, Rewari, District Rewari, in whose favour, said plot was originally allotted by HUDA on 04.10.2014. Subsequently, after purchase, subject plot was re-allotted in his favour vide re-allotment letter dated 19.05.2015. As per plea; draw of lots of plots was conducted in year-2014. However, allotment letter was intentionally delayed by HUDA-appellant and it was issued in month of October-2014. Complainant paid initial 25% of allotment money as he stepped into the shoes of original allottee, after its re-allotment. Thereafter, he has always been ready and willing to deposit amount of installments etc. with HUDA-appellant. Possession of plot was to be offered within a period of three years from date of allotment after completion of development work in the area and further in case; possession of plot is not offered within prescribed period of three years from date of allotment, then HUDA-appellant will have to pay interest @9% on amount deposited by plot holder, after expiry of 3 years, till date of offer of possession. As per plea; till date, the subject plot of complainant is not accessible to any connecting road, nor site has/had been developed. Further, there is no facility of any electricity line and water and sewerage connection is also missing in the area of subject plot of complainant. Main connecting road from Sirsa to Sector 14-P-II is also missing. OPs-appellant without completing development work at site, have issued offer of possession to complainant on 17.03.2017 and fixed dates for payment of installments including interest of remaining amount towards subject plot. This, as per plea, is illegal and also against term and condition of allotment letter, wherein it has categorically been mentioned that no possession can be given by HUDA till the time; development work is completed at site, which in present case is missing and as such offer of possession of plot to him (complainant) is illegal and this would show that OP/HUDA is bent upon illegally charging amount in the shape of interest from innocent plot holders by saving its own skin to pay interest @9% p.a. on amount deposited by plot holders as it cannot offer possession of plots without development at site. Offer of possession issued by OP/HUDA is liable to be withdrawn, till the time complete development work is completed at site. Since date of receipt of illegal offer of possession letter; complainant has been visiting OP/appellant to withdraw it and to complete development work at spot, but OP/appellant have/had refused to withdraw it. Inter-alia on these pleas; complaint has been filed for issuance of direction to HUDA/OP/appellant to withdraw its illegal offer of possession and to issue fresh offer of possession after completing all development works at site in question within stipulated period of 3 years and also compensate him with Rs.5,00,000/- on account of harassment etc.
4. OP/appellant raised contest. In its defense; in preliminary objections thereof pleas regarding complaint being misconceived, groundless, unsustainable, false, frivolous and vexatious and projecting no cause of action with no locus standi have been taken. On merits, it is denied that allotment letter was intentionally delayed by HUDA/appellant and it was issued in October-2014; complainant has always been ready and willing to deposit amount of installments with HUDA; despite condition of providing possession within 3 years; OP/appellant have not acted in consonance with it and that not a single development work has been carried out in the area of subject plot. It is pleaded that OP/appellant/HUDA has already provided basic amenities (i.e. roads, wholesome water, sewerage and electrifications) to inhabitants of locality. It is denied that till date; plot of complainant is not accessible to any connecting road nor site has been developed; there is no facility of any electricity line and water and sewerage connection is also missing in area of plot of complainant; there is no feasibility of any road in front of plot of complainant; main connecting road from Sirsa to Sector 14-P-II is also missing; offer of possession issued by OP/HUDA is liable to be withdrawn forthwith till the time; complete development work is completed at the site within the time frame fixed in the allotment letter, besides compensating complainant with Rs.5.00 lacs.
5. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
6. On analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Hisar has allowed the complaint vide order dated 30.03.2018 and directed OP/HUDA/appellant to withdraw illegal offer of possession and to issue fresh offer of possession after completing all the development works at the site in question within 30 days, from the date of order.
7. Feeling aggrieved; OP/HUDA has filed this appeal. Vide order dated 14.09.2018 implementation of impugned order has been ordered to be stayed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance; perused the record too.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/HUDA has urged that offer of possession of subject plot was given to complainant on completion of development work concerning basic civic amenities and within the prescribed period of three years as per terms and conditions of allotment. It is urged that report of Local Commissioner has been illegally relied upon by learned District Consumer Commission to non-suit HUDA/appellant. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent has urged that all relevant facets of the case have been appropriately analyzed and adjudicated by learned District Consumer Commission while allowing complaint through impugned order dated 30.03.2018.
9. This Commission on analyzing rival submissions has arrived at firm conclusion that this appeal sans merit. Learned District Consumer Commission has solicited report with regard to ground realities existing at the site, where subject plot is situated. Local Commissioner has submitted comprehensive report-Ex.C-10 before learned District Consumer Commission, placed on its record on 21.07.2017. Though this report depicts that the site where subject plot is situated sans basic civic amenities, yet it cannot be ignored that a period more than seven years has thereafter passed till date. May be, no party to this lis has apprised this Commission about the latest position at the spot where subject plot is situated with regard to providing of civic amenities by appellant/HUDA, yet with the passage of over seven years; it can safely be taken note that OP/Appellant must have/had acted progressively, in its endeavor of making the area where subject plot is situated, inhabitable, by providing all basic civic amenities. After all, OP/appellant is an instrumentality of state and do work for ensuring satisfaction of adage regarding its being a welfare state. Contention on behalf of complainant/respondent that nothing is in this regard is in existence at spot, cannot be accepted on its face value. Impugned order regarding re-issuance of offer of possession to complainant, after completion of basic civic amenities at the site of subject plot, in any case, does not contain illegality or perversity in the light of report of Local Commissioner. There is no fallacy in the impugned order dated 30.03.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Hisar. It is hereby affirmed, maintained and upheld. Present appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
10. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. 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.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 27th November, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
