Haryana

StateCommission

A/149/2017

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SAURABH SHARMA

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution:07.02.2017

Date of final hearing:21.02.2024

Date of pronouncement:27.02.2024

 

 

First Appeal No.149 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator.

2.      Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal.

…Appellants.

Through counsel Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate

 

Versus

 

Narender Singh son of Shri Jain Singh, R/o Village Kultaran, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

….Respondent.

Through counsel Mr. R.S. Bhadran, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. R.S. Bhadran, counsel for respondent.

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Delay of 80 days in filing of present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.                Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.10.2016, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal, now (“District Commission”), whereby complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties (“OPs”) were directed as under:-

“Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay interest @ 9% from 24.05.2014 to 28.12.2014 to the complainant on the amount deposited by the complainant upto 24.05.2014 and further not to claim any interest on the remaining installments for this period i.e. from 24.05.2014 to 28.12.2014. However, the OPs are at liberty to claim charges including interest and extension fees as per their rules and regulations except the period mentioned above. The OPs are also burdened to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable.”

 

3.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant is a re-allottee of plot No.206-P of area measuring 14 marlas situated in Sector-21, Urban Estate, Kaithal vide memo No.Z0004/EO007/UE015/REALL/0000000972 dated 15.12.2011. It was alleged that as per the terms and condition No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be offered within a period of three years from the date of allotment letter after completion of development work in the area but the OPs failed to comply with said condition of the allotment letter. It was further alleged that the possession was offered by the OPs vide letter No. No.Z0004/EO007/UE015/OFPOS/0000002245 dated 28.12.2014 to the complainant without completing development works at site i.e. basic amenities, road, street light, electricity lines, sewerage, water supply etc. in the area of plot of complainant. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and filed their written version by submitting therein that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as he is re-allottee of plot in question. It was further submitted that basic amenities have been provided by the OPs at the site i.e. roads, sewerage/drainage, water supply and electricity supply etc. In this regard, in reference to office endorsement No.870 dated 14.01.2014, No.12103 dated 02.06.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal the report regarding completion of development works vide endorsement No.1738039 dated 30.06.2014 has been issued by Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division, Kaithal to Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal regarding all the 946 plots including the plot re-allotted to the complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint vide its impugned order dated 17.10.2016 and directed the OPs as mentioned in Para 2^nd (Supra).

6.                Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 17.10.2016, OPs-appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

 7.                 Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. R.S. Bhadran, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                It is an admitted fact by both the parties that the present respondent-complainant is a re-allottee of plot No.206-P of area measuring 14 marlas, situated in Sector-21, Urban Estate, Kaithal vide memo No.Z0004/EO007/UE015/REALL/0000000972 dated 15.12.2011 of present appellants-OPs. It is also an admitted fact that the possession was offered by the appellants-OPs to respondent-complainant vide letter NoZ0004/EO007/UE015/OFPOS/0000002245 dated 28.12.2014. It is also an admitted fact that as per the Condition No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be offered within a period of three years from the date of allotment letter after completion of development work.

9.                The only controversy involved in the present matter is that; as per the respondent-complainant, present appellants-OPs are liable to pay interest on the deposited amount because as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the appellants-OPs have to hand over the possession of plot in question complete in all respect i.e. road, street light, electricity lines, sewerage, water supply, community hall, parks, school etc., but they failed to do so.

10.              On the other hand, as per appellants-OPs possession of plot in question was offered to respondent-complainant vide allotment letter NoZ0004/EO007/UE015/OFPOS/0000002245 dated 28.12.2014, complete in all respect. To prove his contentions, learned counsel for appellants-OPs has drawn attention of this Commission towards the endorsement No.870 dated 14.01.2014, No.12103 dated 02.06.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal relating to report regarding the completion of development works vide endorsement No.1738039 dated 30.06.2014 which has been issued by Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division, Kaithal to Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal regarding all the 946 plots including the plot re-allotted the present respondent-complainant. Further, it was submitted that the respondent-complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as he is a re-allottee.

11.              Learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint after relying upon condition No.7 of allotment letter, as per which possession of the plot will be offered within a period of three years from the date of allotment after completion of development work in the area and in case, possession of the plot is not offered within the prescribed period of three years from the date of allotment letter, appellants-OPs will pay interest at the rate of 9%  on the deposited amount after the expiry of three years till the date of offer of possession and the allottee will not be required to pay further installments. Further, the balance installment will only start after the possession of the plot is offered to the allottee. However, Learned District Commission failed to consider the fact that the complainant-respondent is a re-allottee. Moreover, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5462 of 2002, titled as “Banglore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank” decided on 17.05.2007, held that:-

“We allow the this appeal and set aside the order dated 11.04.2022 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, As the main prayer for completion and delivery of the houses was complied with during the pendency of the complaint, and as we have held that respondent is not entitled to interest or compensation, the complaint is disposed of with a direction to BDA to compete the process of execution and registration of sale deed/s in respect of the houses without claiming any extra cost, within three months from today.”

Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petitions Nos. 2111-2113 of 2012 in case titled as “Som Parkash and Ors. Vs. Haryana Urband Development Authority and Ors.”, it has been held that :-

“It is an admitted fact that, petitioner are re-allottees and not the original allottees. Thus, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raje Ram (Supra) and Revision Petition No.1062 of 2012 decided by this Commission on 22.11.2012 in Krishan Lal Karla Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, the above revision petitions are not maintainable. Accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- each”.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case titled as “Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. M/s Zuari Industries”, 2009 (3) R.C.R (Civil) 104 (DB), held that:-

“Plot allotted to petitioners by HUDA-Petitioner surrendering the plot and taking refund-Thereafter petitioner ha no right to get return of surrendered plot.”

“Residential plot allotted to petitioner by HUDA-Petitioner did not complete construction for five years-Petitioner surrendering the plot to HUDA and taking refund of 90% of amount paid by him towards price of plot-Thereafter petitioner again making a request for return of surrendered plot-Request rightly turned down.”

“A writ petition filed by petitioner and unnecessary dragged a party into litigation which was noting but abuse of process of law-petition dismissed-cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed.”

 

Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as “Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Indu Ahuja”, III (2011) CPJ 115 (NC),   has held that:-

“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records of the case, it cannot but be said that both the fora below have failed to consider that the respondent/complainant was a re-allottee.

She had purchased the plot with her open eyes fully aware of the situation prevailing on the plot.

Having taken possession of the plot in 1993 and if an electric wire was passing over the plot, she ought to have either represented before the concerned authorities of petitioner/HUDA to get the said electric wire removed or filed a complaint soon thereafter.

There is no whisper with regard to any representation having been made by the complainant in the matter. The complaint having been filed during the year 2002 was clearly barred by limitation. Besides, as has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the purchase of the plot from the original allottee was not for her own use/meant for her residence. The fact that she entered into a sale agreement soon after this re-allotment with a third party, namely, Punam Manocha clearly proves that she had purchased the plot purely for the purpose of investment and for that reason she would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever. The decision of this Commission relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Satpal Jain (supra), which is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2381 of 2003, holding that re-allottee is not entitled to any interest, is aptly relevant to the facts of this case. To similar effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank [(2007) 6 SCC 711]. The respondent/complainant at the time of purchase of the plot, knowing-fully well that an electric wire was passing overhead, had purchased the same and thereafter made the complaint, seeking the relief, which has been erroneously allowed by the fora below.

The question of any relief, under the circumstances, does not arise. The order passed by the fora below are accordingly set aside and the revision petition is allowed with no order as to costs.”

Case referred:

1. Satpal Jain Vs. HUDA & Anr., Revision Petition No.1094 of 2010 decided on 09^th April, 2010 (Relied)
2. Banglore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, II (2007) CPJ 17 (SC) 1 (2008) SLT 761. (Relied)

 

In Satpal Jain Vs. HUDA & Anr., Revision Petition No.1094 of 2010 decided on 09^th April, 2010, Hon’ble State Commission relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2381 of 2003 and held that the re-allottee is not entitled to any interest, as the same was neither warranted nor justified and therefore, the question of awarding any compensation does not arise.

12.              The citations discussed above are fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus, do not provide any benefit to the present respondent-complainant. Thus, it is established that the re-allottee is not entitled for any interest benefit.

13.              In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, present appeal stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission is hereby set-aside.

14.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt, identification and due verification as per rules.

15.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

16.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

17.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 27^th February, 2024

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

 Addl. Bench-III