DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 273 of 25.7.2019

                                      Decided on:         9.4.2021

Dr. Saurabh Kansal S/o Dr.Amritpal Kansal, resident of 10-B, Opp.Govt. Press, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Patiala Urban Development Authority, Patiala through its Estate Officer (PUDA Complex Urban Estate, Phase II, Patiala).
2. M/s Omaxe Ltd. Reg.office 7, L.S.C.Kalkaji,New Delhi-110019.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.J.P.Singla, counsel for complainant.

                                      Smt.Kusum Sood, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Sh.S.S.Sahni, counsel for OP No.2.                              

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Saurabh Kansal  (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) against Patiala Urban Development Authority and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).

Facts of the case

2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant Dr.Saurabh Kansal  purchased plot No.H-118 measuring 500 sq.yard in the residential township known as “PDA-OMAXE-City Patiala from Ms.Joban Ghuman D/o Paramjit Singh Ghuman to whom the plot was allotted in general category @ Rs.6000/-per sq. yard by the OPs  vide allotment letter No.1363 dated 3.6.2009 and the said plot was transferred in the name of the complainant vide No.1825 dated 17.7.2009.It is averred that the land acquisition collector assessed the value of the land by adopting belting system as:

Rs.13 lacs per acre:for land falling in 1^st acre of Patiala-Sirhind main road

Rs.7.5. lacs per acrefor land falling in next three acres of 1^st acre of themain road

Rs.5lacs per acre:for remaining land falling on backside of four acre.

It is further averred that the land owners made various land references before the Ld. District Judge Patiala who vide his judgment dated 15.9.2012 enhanced the compensation as:

1. Land for Rs.400/p per sq. yard abutting the main road for the land falling in 1^st acre of Patiala Sirhind Main Road
2. Land for Rs.255/- per sq. yard for second, third and fourth acre
3. Land for Rs.150/- per sq. yard falling after fourth acre.

Thereafter the land owners approached the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Courtand the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide RSA No.991 of 2013(O&M) decided the matter on 2.3.2016 and assessed the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.1418/- per sq.yard by removing the belting system. Thereafter aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.3.2016, the land owners beneficiaries and the allottees approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiawhile setting aside the judgment dated 2.3.2016 vide its judgment dated 24,October,2018, determined the uniform rate of Rs.400/- per sq. yard for the entire land and made it clear that compensation to carry statutorybenefits also and the amount already paid shall be adjusted therein.

3. It is further averred that as per condition No.17 of the allotment letter 3.6.2009,duly signed by the Estate Officer, PDA Patiala and authorized signatory of M/s Omaxe Ltd. wherein  it has been specifically stated that “possession of the plot to the successful applicants will be given within two years from the date of allotment positively with complete infrastructure.” It is averred that the PDA Omaxe has miserably failed to complete the infrastructure in total and have not delivered the possession till today and they have not obtained the completion certificate of the project from the competent authority. It is averred that the complainants came into picture only in the year 2009 when the said plot was transferred in his name. PDA Omaxe is liable for the payment of interest for the period 2003 to 2008 as the land was acquired by them in the year 2003 and they have charged huge amount from the allottee i.e. Rs.5000/- per sq.yard and Rs.6000/- per sq. yard against the acquisition price of Rs.250/- per sq. yard which was later on enhanced to the tune of Rs.400/- per sq. yard. It is averred that after the enhancement was made by the reference court i.e. Ld.District Judge, Patiala, the PDA Omaxe issued notices for recovery vide their memo dated 11.7.2014 having raised the demand of Rs.2,49,915/-@ Rs.500/- per sq. yard. Thereafter vide letter memo No.6732 dated 5.6.2017 made further demand of Rs.2,79,905/- @ Rs. 560/- per sq. yard and after that also raised the demand of Rs.4,81,337/-  @ Rs.963/- per sq. yard vide letter No.1766 dated 9.7.2019. It is averred that the demand raised by the OPs is totally unjustified and arbitrary because the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had fixed the rate of the entire acquired land @ Rs.400/- per sq. yard against which the original allottee has already paid Rs.6000/- per sq. yards to the PDA Omaxe and the PDA Omaxe is responsible to make the payment of enhanced compensation from the allotment price of Rs.6000/- per. Sq.yard and have miserably failed to fulfill its obligation as per condition No.17 of the allotment letter No.1363 dated 3.6.2009.
4. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs; to pay compensation of Rs.5lac per year for the delayed period till the delivery of possession to the complainant; to stop the recovery notices issued by the PDA Omaxe ; to recalculate the entire matter keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 30.4.2015 and to place on record the original file on which the price of Rs.6000/- was fixed at the time of allotment; to pay Rs.one lac as legal costs and also to pay Rs.5lacs for mental agony, torture caused to the complainant.

Reply/Written Statement

5. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsels and contested the complaint by filing separate written statements.
6. In the written reply filed by OP No.1 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merits, it is submitted that the allottees of the plots were duly given allotment letter by the PUDA and M/s Omaxe Ltd. was required to handover the possession of the plots to the allottees within the stipulated period and the land allotted by PUDA was required to be developed by M/s Omaxe Ltd. who has been developer designated. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation  enhanced by the Hon’ble courts and the price of the plots charged from the allottees are related to each other .The recent enhancement granted to the farmers for the acquired land has been calculated properly by the OP and the demand notices sent to the allottees are valid and legal. After denying all other averments, the OP no.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In the written reply filed by OP No.2 it also raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the factum of pendency of CWP No.8100 of 2011 titled as Harbhajan Singh and Ors.Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. The development of the entire project was stalled as Status Quo was ordered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the aforesaid CWP. That the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that M/s Omaxe Ltd. has been in joint development agreement  with PDA and as M/s Omaxe Ltd. was higher bidder so the development rights were allotted in favor of it. So no direct payment has ever been made to Omaxe by the complainants and all the payments were made directly to OP No.1 and even all the post allotment correspondence was exchanged between the complainant and OP No.1.Since the matter was beyond the control of OP No.2 as there was status quo order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, hence the allottees of plots were given rebate extension fee w.e.f.29.7.2011 to 28.9.2013.That the complaint is time barred and is liable to be dismissed and that this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
9. On merits, it is submitted that the original plot was allotted to one Sukhchain Singh s/o Gurdev Singh, who further sold the same to one Ms.Joban Ghuman but later on the same transferred in the name of complainant on 17.7.2009 on the request made by the complainant, as such the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Thereafter complainant had been making the payments of enhanced amount, additional price, compensation amount to OP No.1 from time to time , as applicable and found due by way of demand drafts except the last amount which was demanded by OP No.1 on dated 19.6.2019, as per orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is further submitted that the development work of Omaxe City was stopped beyond the control of OP No.2 as the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court passed the status quo order dated 29.7.2011 which remained in operation upto 26.9.2013 and thereafter joint agreement was expired for which various letters were written to Punjab Govt. for extension of the same and the OP No.2 is not at fault. It is further submitted that the complainant is in knowledge of all the facts and circumstances and had been making the payment to OP No.1 since transfer  of the plot except the demand raised vide letter dated 19.6.2019. It is denied that the demand raised by the OP is unjustified or arbitrary  as the same is made after the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India vide order dated 24.10.2018 and as such the complainant is  liable to pay the amounts so demanded from him vide letter dated 19.6.2019.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP No.2 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the written statements filed by OPs
11.  
11. In support of the complaint, complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
12. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Shilpa Authorized signatory alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP31 and closed the evidence.
13. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Isha Singal, Estate Officer, PUDA alongwith documents Exs. OP 32 to OP42  and closed the evidence.
14.  
14. Written arguments on behalf of the complainant have also been filed. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
15. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased plot No.H-118 measuring 500 sq. yard in the residential township known as PDA-Omaxe City, Patiala from Ms.Joban Ghuman d/o Paramjit Singh Ghuman, to whom same was allotted in general category @Rs.6000/- per sq. yard. The ld. counsel further argued that the said plot was transferred in the name of the complainant vide No.1825 dated 17.7.2009 .The ld. counsel further argued that the land measuring 330 acres 04 bighas ½ biswas was acquired by Govt. of Punjab department of Housing & Urban Development for setting up integrated township at village Baran Tehsil & District Patiala under the aegis of Patiala Urban Planning & Development Authority and notification was issued on 10.12.2002.The ld. counsel further argued that various land references were made by the land owners before Ld.District Judge, Patiala and judgment dated 15.9.2012 was passed. The ld. counsel further argued that thereafter the land owners approached the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Hon’ble High Court assessed the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.1418/- per sq. yard vide its order dated 2.3.2016. The ld. counsel further argued that aggrieved by the said judgment, the land owners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 24October,2018  while setting aside the judgment dated 2.3.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court determined the uniform rate of Rs.400/- per sq. yards for the entire land. The ld.counsel further argued that as per condition No.17 of the allotment letter dated 3.6.2009, which is duly signed by the Estate Officer, PDA Patiala and authorized signatory of M/s Omaxe Ltd.it has been specifically stated that the possession of the plot to the successful applicants will be given within two years from the date of allotment positively with complete infrastructure, but have not delivered the possession till today. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant the PDA Omaxe has not obtained the completion certificate of the project from the competent authority and is liable to pay the interest for the period from 2003 to 2009 and they have charged huge amount @ Rs.6000/- per sq.yard. The ld. counsel further argued that originally the land was acquired by Govt. of Punjab for Urban and Housing Department but lateron Omaxe was associated and huge amount was taken from the Omaxe to make his business partner with PDA. The ld. counsel further argued that it is not disputed that in view of clause 8 of the allotment letter allottee was liable to pay the amount of enhanced compensation  made by the appropriate courts. The ld. counsel further argued that the OPs have sold the commercial sites in an open auction @ Rs.1.00 lac per sq. yards and still with them. The ld. counsel further argued that as PDA has failed to fulfill its obligation as per condition No.17 of the allotment letter, hence the amount mentioned in prayer clause be allowed. The ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgments Shalimar Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Smt.Sonia FA 181/2013 decided on 25.6.2013 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh,  Ram Krishan and another Vs. State of Haryana and other CWP 4108 of 2016 decided on 22.11.2016 by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, Anil Kumar Jain & Anr. V/s M/s Nexgen Infracon Private Limited and others decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi on 23.12.2019, Welfare Society of Plot holders of PDA-Omaxe City Vs. Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority and another CWP18259 of 2016 decided on 7.9.2016 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana Chandigarh, Gurpreet Singh Bhullar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh on 17.10.2019, Maharaja Yadavindra Enclave Committee Vs. State of Punjab and others CWP 17207 of 2014 decided on 30.4.2015 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh, The Welfare Society of Plot Holders of Patiala Development Authority Omaxe City and others Vs. Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority ,Patiala and others FA 201 of 2015 decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh, Paramjit Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and another CC 318 of 2018 decided on 30.92019 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh and Dera Baba Jassa Singh Vs. Lal Singh C.R.No.4260 of 2006,decided on 4.9.2009 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh.
16. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that it is the responsibility of the Omaxe and not the PDA to pay any amount if the same is due towards the compensation. The ld. counsel further argued that complainant is also defaulter as he has not paid the total amount of the plot in question. The ld. counsel further argued that the matter was pending in the Hon’ble High Court for order, so the complaint be dismissed.
17. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the development of the entire project was stopped as status quo by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.8100 of 2011 and it was vacated on 26.9.2013.The ld. counsel further argued that Omaxe has been in joint development agreement with PDA. The Omaxe was highest bidder so the development rights were allotted to Omaxe Ltd. and it is only for development of land. The ld. counsel further argued that no direct payment was made by the complainant to it. So the matter is beyond the control of OP No.2, so the complaint be dismissed.
18. To prove the case, Dr.Saurabh Kansal has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his affidavit,Ex.C1 is he allotment letter issued to Joban Ghuman dated 3.6.2009 and the rate was Rs.6000/- per sq.yard and total amount was Rs.30,00,000/-. As per Section 17 of the clause of the allotment letter, “Possession of the plot to the successful applicants will be given within two years from the date of allotment letter positively with complete infrastructure. However, PDA/Developer shall not be held responsible or liable for non performance of its obligations or undertakings as provided for in this letter of allotment, if such performance is prevented, delayed or hindered by an act of God, fire, flood, explosion , war, riot, terrorist, sabotage”

So as per condition No.17, the certain explosion which was never happened at Patiala, the possession was to be delivered within two years but that was never delivered till today.

Ex.C2 is the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh passed in RFA No.991 of 2013 Tarlochan Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, Ex.C3 is the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No(s) 18014 of 2017 Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. Versus Tarlochan Singh and Ors,Ex.C4 is letter of allotment to Saurabh Kansal of the plot in question and the plot was transferred in his name, Ex.C5 is letter of allotment in the name of Saurabh Kansal,Ex.C6 is letter of PUDA to Saurabh Kansal for the recovery of additional price of plot in question, Ex.C7 is judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh in CWP No.17207 of 2014 Maharaja Yadavindra Enclave Committee Vs. State of Punjab and others.

19.           On the other hand Shilpa daughter of Ashok Kumar has tendered her affidavit, Ex.OPA on behalf of Omaxe Ltd. and she has deposed as per the written statement and she has deposed that writ petition was filed and status quo order was passed on 29.7.2011,Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Isha Singal, Estate Officer, PDA, Patiala and she has deposed as per the written statement. In para No.8 of the affidavit, she has deposed that as per the allotment letter and the possession of the plot was to be handed over within the stipulated period. However, it is significant that the land allotted by PUDA/PDA was required to be developed by M/s Omaxe Ltd. as it has been the developer designated. She has further deposed that the possession of the plots in the concerned area/project has already been handed over to the allottees and the PDA has not in any way failed deliver the possession of the plots. Ex.OP1 is the copy of resolution of the Omaxe, Ex.OP2 is the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh in CWP No.8100 of 2011 Harbhajan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, Ex.OP3 is misc application filed in CWP No.8100 of 2011, Ex.OP5 is CWP filed by Welfare Society of Plot Holders before Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh,Ex.OP6 is agenda of the PDA,Ex.OP7 is application form of Joban Ghuman,Ex.OP8 is document of Joban Ghuman,Ex.OP10 is document of Joban Ghuman, Ex.OP11 is allotment letter to Joban Ghuman, Ex.OP12 is application for transfer of plotEx.OP13 is letter of transfer by Saurabh Kansal, Ex.OP14 is affidavit of Dr.Saurabh Kansal, Ex.OP15 is another affidavit of Saurabh Kansal, Ex.OP16 is indemnity bond,Ex.OP17 is also affidavit of Saurabh Kansal,Ex.OP18 is letter by Saurabh Kansal,Ex.OP19 letter written by PDA to Saurabh Kansal,Ex.OP20 letter by PDA to Saurabh Kansal for making the payment of enhance rate, Ex.OP21 to PDA by Saurabh Kansal Ex.OP22 is letter by PDA to Saurabh Kansal,Ex.OP24 is also letter by PUDA,Ex.OP25 is also letter of PUDA,Ex.OP27 is receipt of payment,Ex.OP28 letter by PUDA,Ex.OP29 letter by Saurabh Kansal,Ex.OP30 is the order passed in Welfare Society of Plot Vs. Punjab Urban Planning,Ex.OP31 is notice of termination,Ex.OP32 is also notice of termination,Ex.OP33 is letter of Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority, Ex.OP35 letter by PUDA,Ex.OP36 proceedings of the meeting,Ex.OP37 and OP 38 are also proceedings of the meeting.
20. By going through all the documents, it is clear that the present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against PDA Omaxe Patiala  pertaining to deficiency in service on account of failure to provide  possession of plot as per the allotment agreement.PDA entered into joint development agreement with Omaxe Ltd. for development of residential township known as PDA Omaxe City-Patiala on public private basis and it was the joint venture of both PDA and Omaxe Ltd. and are responsible for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
21. Vide allotment letter Ex.C1 plot bearing No.H-118 measuring 500 sq. yard in the residential township known as PDA Omaxe City was allotted to Ms.Joban Ghuman for Rs.30lac.Thereafter it was transferred to Dr.Saurabh Kansal, present complainant. As already stated above, as per Clause 17 of Ex.C1, the possession was to be delivered within two years of allotment unless the project is delayed by act of God, fire, flood, explosion, war, riot, terrorist and sabotage. Till now neither there has been any communication  nor any intimation  for providing the possession of the plot, so provided under Section 17, nor there had been any circumstances which could  justify the inordinate delay. As such there is delay of 10 years in handing over the possession and there is also no document which can show that the possession was actually handed over to the complainant. As per the documents, the complainant paid Rs.34,85,895/- against total price of Rs.30lac but the possession has not been delivered.
22. Admittedly completion certificate as such has not been given by the competent authority of project in question. Already it was late by more than a decade ago, so definitely there is deficiency of service on the part of both the OPs. OP No.2 has stated that the possession of the said plot has already been given to the complainant but the possession cannot be given without completion certificate and till the time all the basic amenities are provided. As already stated there is no document on the file to prove that the possession has been already handed over to the complainant.
23. As per clause 16, it is clearly stated , “ The PDA/ developer   shall offer in writing to the allottee to take over, occupy and use the said plot within 30 days from the date of offer of possession. But there is no document on the file regarding offering of possession or delivery of possession of plot has given to the complainant. Furthermore as per Clause 18 of the allotment letter,Ex.C1, the OPs were under obligation to execute a conveyance deed after handing over the possession to the complainant but again there is no document pertaining to execution of any conveyance deed produced by the OPs.
24. The very purpose of purchase of a plot was to enable the complainant to build up a permanent residential for himself and for his family which is defeated due to the omission on the part of the OPs. It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case Anil Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. M/s Nexgen Infracon Private Ltd. that , “ the primary purpose of a consumer in booking a residential plot which the builder is to construct for him, is to start living in that house on or about the date committed to him by the building for delivering possession of the plot booked by him. If the builder fails to comply with the contractual obligation and at the same time, is unable to show that the delay in completion of the plot and offering its possession to the consumer is  on account of circumstances beyond his control, this would constitute deficiency on the part of the Builder/Service Provider in rendering service to the consumer”.
25. In addition to deficiency in providing the possession  of the plot in a time bound manner as per allotment letter, OPs have also indulged in unfair trade practice. It has been submitted that the OPs have been making continuous demand of more money on the excuse of  enhancement of compensation and they have raised an additional enhanced demand @ Rs.500/- sq.yard vide notice dated 11.7.2014,Ex.C4, again @ Rs.560/- sq. yard vide notice dated 5.6.2017,Ex.C5 and again raised an additional enhanced demand @ Rs.963/- sq.yard vide notice dated 30.4.2015,Ex.C6.The complainant has already made Rs.34,85,895/- as against the total price of Rs.30lac.As the complainant had paid the excess amount despite the fact that there had been in ordinate delay of 10 years in handing over the possession of the plot.
26. The land wherein the said project is being developed was under litigation pertaining to the issue of amount and quantum of compensation between Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Tarlochan Singh, wherein the Hon’ble Apex court determined the uniform rate of Rs.400/- per sq. yard for the entire land and further held that compensation to carry statutory benefits and amount already paid shall be adjusted therein. As per the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the compensation  under land acquisition of the acquired land has been fixed @ Rs.400/- per sq. yards for the entire land, whereas the complainant had already paid  the amount @ Rs.6000/- per sq. yard which is   many times above and OPs have demanded additional total enhanced compensation @ Rs.2023 per sq. yard without giving any particular and thereby increased the consideration of plot @ Rs.8023/- per sq. yard.
27. It is pertinent to mention here that the issue regarding manner of apportionment of compensation and providing the necessary particulars to the allottees has been already adjudicated in the case titled as Welfare Society of Plot Holders of PDA Omaxe City Vs. Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority and another wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had given directions to the OPs to provide complete particulars of apportionment of compensation of allottees but the gross violation, the OPs have failed to provide necessary particulars. It is admitted that the OPs have acquired land of 336.05 acres situated at village Baran, Sirhind Road, Patiala and total amount of enhanced compensation is calculated as Rs.5,62,289/- sq. yards, whereas the area of 336.5 sq. yards comes to 16,28,660 sq. yards. The OPs have failed to give any explanation that as to why for the computation of enhanced compensation, the entire land is not considered and only the area covered under plots is burdened with the enhanced compensation.
28. As per clause 20 of allotment letter, “common area and facilities shall remain under the control of the developer i.e. OP No.2. The amount received by the PDA from Omaxe Ltd. should also be considered towards the payment which ought to be made to the farmers on account of enhanced compensation. As such the payment towards enhanced compensation for common purpose should be made by OPs either from the allotment price of Rs.6000/- per sq. yard or from any profits from the said project. In CWP 25115 of 2016 Gurpreet Singh Bhullar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., it has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that any authority cannot charge any interest or penalty from the allottees in case  of delayed possession prior to actual offer of possession. In the present case the OPs are taking undue advantage of its governing position and are trying to extract more money from the complainant by intentionally delaying the possession of the plot in question. It has been held by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP17207/2014 in the case of Maharaja Yadvindra Enclave Committee Vs. State of Punjab and others that Improvement Trust Patiala, to pass reasoned order before raising the demand of the additional liability and further issued directions that the petitioner will put comprehensive representation that the amount claimed by the respondent is not payable and the respondent will pass speaking order within two months and afford an opportunity of being heard.
29. So by going through the record and that already writ petition filed by   Harbhajan Singh and Ors.Vs. State of Punjab and Ors is pending before Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court but this complaint is on different footing as the present  complaint is on the ground that the possession of the plot has not been given even more than 10 years have passed even despite the fact that the complainant had deposited around of Rs.35lac with the OPs. So from the documents on the file it is clear that the false representation was given to the complainant at the time of purchase of the plat that the possession will be given in two years from the date of allotment i.e. 3.6.2011 but the possession has not been delivered till today nor there is any completion certificate on the file. So it is clear that the OPs have defrauded the complainant. OP No.1 is Govt. organization and it is not expected that Govt. organization after receiving around of Rs.35lac has not been able to procure completion certificate and they have not given the possession of the plot to the allottee.
30. So due to our above discussion, as the possession of the plot has not been delivered, the complaint stands partly allowed and the OPs are directed to handover the possession of the plot in question to the complainant within 45 days and pay compensation in the form of interest @9% per annum on the deposited amount in equal shares on account of delay in handing over the possession to the complainant from the respective dates of deposits till the possession is given to the allottee. It is made clear that the period of 29.7.2011 to 26.9.2013 will be deducted as status quo order was passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Regarding another relief that the demand notice of more amount is illegal, the OPs can only demand more amount if they are competent to recover from the plot holder as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed inCivil Appeal No(s) 18014 of 2017titled as Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority and Anr. Vs. Tarlochan Singh and ors. qua this scheme. As the OPs have delayed the possession even after receipt of the amount from the complainant, they are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.33000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. It is made clear that both the

ANNOUNCED

DATED:9.4.2021         

                                          Vinod Kumar Gulati                    Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                  Member                                  President