JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant booked a residential plot with the opposite party in a Project namely Hyde Park Estate which the opposite party was to develop in Mohali.  Plot bearing No.201, Block-H, Pocket R2 was allotted to the complainant.  The case of the complainant is that it was represented to him that the area near the plot would be vacant but the opposite party has changed the layout plan, as a result of which the said plot is surrounded by a row of two-storey flat on both its side which was not disclosed to him at the time of allotment.  Though, alternative plots were offered to the complainant, none of them was acceptable to him.  The complainant is therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the amount of Rs.1,10,15,262.24 paid by him to the opposite party along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2.      Admittedly, the parties had entered into a plot buyers’ agreement on 09.2.2012.  However, the aforesaid agreement contains no promise to keep the surrounding areas of the plot No. 201, Block-H, Pocket R2 vacant for all the time to come.

3.      A perusal of the plan which according to the complainant was annexed to the buyers’ agreement would show that there was a road in front as well as on the side of plot No. 201, Block-H, Pocket R2 allotted to the complainant.  A perusal of the plan depicting the existing position of the said plot, which the complainant has filed in compliance of the liberty granted to him by this Commission on 20.4.2017 would show that there is still one road in front and the other road on the side of the aforesaid plot.  It appears form the layout plan alleged to be annexed to the buyers’ agreement that residential flat had not been constructed at the time the said agreement was executed.  But that did not prevent the opposite party from constructing the residential flats in the vacant area of the complex with the approval of the competent authority.  This is not the case of the complainant that the construction of the residential flats around the plot allotted to him has been carried out without obtaining the requisite approval from the concerned authorities.

4.      The opposite party offered possession of the allotted plot to the complainant vide letter dated 22.12.2014 informing him they were in receipt of the completion certificate and asked him to submit certain documents specified in the said letter, besides depositing the balance amount payable by him.  The complainant responded to the said letter on 04.1.2015 but did not claim that the possession was not acceptable to him on account of the flats having been constructed in the vicinity of the plot.  The learned counsel for the complainant states that since the complainant is a Non-Resident-Indian, he could not inspect the plot at the time the aforesaid response was sent.  The complainant wrote a letter dated 16.3.2015 to the opposite party, stating therein that on visiting the site they had found that the plot was surrounded by various flats on both sides and requested change of the location of the plot.  However, it was nowhere alleged in the aforesaid letter that the opposite party had represented to the complainant at the time of the booking that no flats would be constructed in the vicinity or on the sides of the plot allotted to him.  The complainant sent an email dated 12.8.2015 with respect to the aforesaid plot.  Even in the said email he did not claim that the opposite party had represented to him that no flat would be constructed on the sides of the plot to him.

5.      I am therefore, satisfied that no promise was made by the opposite party to the complainant, not to construct any flat on the sides or in the vicinity of the plot allotted to him.  The complainant therefore, is not entitled to seek cancellation of the allotment and refund of the money paid by him on account of the construction of the flats on the sides of the plot allotted to him.  The complaint being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.