ORDER

SHASHI NARANG (MEMBER)

Brief facts of the complaint are that in open scheme of PUDA dated 27/12/1999 for free hold 150sq. yards, 300 and 400 sq. yards residential plots. Complainant applied to opposite party for allotment of 400 sq. yards plot alongwith earnest money of Rs.37000/- on 12/1/2K and also deposited sum of Rs.1,48,000/- on 5/2/2001 and completed 25% cost of the plot according to the conditions mentioned in the brochure, PUDA has failed to provide possession of the plot to the complainant rather cancelled the same inspite of various references by the complainant to deliver the possession to Addl. Chief Administrative PUDA considering notice as appeal dismissed the same on flimsy ground without providing opportunity to be heard. It was further argued that remaining price of the plot amounting to Rs.511000/- deducting the amount of interest on earlier deposit which has been accepted by the opposite party, PUDA without delivery of possession and completing development works demanded three installments with interest has canceled the plot. The manner and acts for cancellation of plot before finalization of zoning plan which was finalized on 12/6/2002, is arbitrary without any authority and comes under deficiency and unfair trade practice.

2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party who appeared through counsel and filed written statement.

3. In support of his version complainant produced in evidence affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to C40.

4. On the other hand opposite party produced in evidence affidavit Ex.OA and documents Ex.OA1 to OA25.

5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Complainant has argued that in open scheme of PUDA dated 27/12/1999 for free hold 150sq. yards, 300 and 400 sq. yards residential plots, he applied to opposite party for allotment of 400 sq. yards plot alongwith earnest money of Rs.37000/- on 12/1/2K and also deposited sum of Rs.1,48,000/- on 5/2/2001 and copleted 25% cost of the plot and inspite of terms and conditions mentioned in the brochure, PUDA has failed to provide possession of the plot to the complainant rather canceled the same inspite of various references by the complainant to deliver the possession to Addl. Chief Administrative PUDA considering notice as appeal dismissed the same on flimsy ground without providing opportunity to be heard. It was further argued that remaining price of the plot amounting to Rs.511000/- deducting the amount of interest on earlier deposit which has been accepted by the opposite party, PUDA without delivery of possession and completing development works demanded three installments with interest has canceled the plot. Complainant has also brought to the notice of the Forum that 25 complaints were filed by the allottees and same Urban Estate were disposed of by this forum on 27/10/2004 and feeling aggrieved the matter was taken with the Hon'ble State Commission and appeals were disposed of in favour of the allottees by small modification in the judgment delivered by this Forum vide order dated. Thereafter opposite party filed revision to the Hon'ble National Commission and same was also set aside vide order dated The manner and acts for cancellation of plot before finalization of zoning plan which was finalized on 12/6/2002, is arbitrary without any authority and comes under deficiency and unfair trade practice.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has counter argued that present complaint is not maintainable and is time barred. Complainant has got no locus standi to pursue the present complaint against the opposite party. Present complaint is time barred and is not maintainable at this belated stage. The allotment has been canceled about six years back on 21/10/2003 and then appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed in his presence by speaking order of the appellate authority dated 15/12/2004. Subsequently after due deduction as per rules amount deposited by the complainant has also been refunded more than three years back while forwarding memo No.7496 dated 13/6/2005 and file stands closed. It was further argued that complainant was never refused delivery of possession by the opposite party and the opposite party was always ready to deliver the possession of plot in question to the complainant. Development work completed within time by the opposite party and evenotherwise it was never condition precedent for the completion of development works to deposit installments of the plots. It was mentioned in the allotment letter dated 29/12/2K regarding payment schedule and it was clearly laid down that installments were to be paid w.e.f. 29/12/2K only i.e. after one year of the said letter and further it was clearly mentioned therein that allottees required to take possession of the plot within 60 days from the date of issue of the letter. It was further argued that complainant has nothing to do with the passing of zoning plan as presently neither the complainant is allottee nor consumer qua opposite party and complainant is wrongly taking frivolous plea of passing of zoning plan just to hide his shortcoming. Passing of zoning plan is nowhere related to the present complaint in issuance of show cause notice dated 26/4/2003 and reply threto by the complainant, thereafter cancellation of order a well as order dated 15/12/2004 were passed in appeal of the complainant after giving due opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The contents relied by the complainant in his representation dated 15/12/2003 were false and frivolous as the complainant had merely sought to be shared his monoply in paying price of the plot in question by raising false unsustainable pleas Hence after dismissal of the appeal opposite party had duly discharged its onus while issuing refund cheque to the complainant which was sent to the residence of the complainant who refused to receive the same as per postal endorsement and has now malafidely concealed said fact of refusal to receive from this Forum. As such the complaint of the complainant merits dismissal.

6, We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. The first point which fell for determination is as to whether opposite party PUDA was competent to deliver the possession of the lot in dispute to the complainant before finalization of zoning plan. Zoning plan was finalized on 12/6/2002 then how complainant could apply for delivery of possession without finalization of zoning plan. Ex.C1 is the brochure on the basis of which complainant applied for allotment of free hold residential plot in Urban Estate, Kapurthala of 400 sq. yards. He deposited earnest money of rs.37000/- on 12/1/2K and obtained receipt Ex .C2 and he also deposited Rs.148000/- on 5/2/2001 Ex.C3. Thus complainant had deposited 25% of interest of the plot as per preliminary requirement of PUDA. PUDA had to handover the possession of the plot by the end of year 2K when development works were likely to be completed and it was further agreed not to charge any interest on installment till possession is handed over to the allottees and in case PUDA fails to deliver the possession of the plot within period of two years of the date on which 25% is completed, it would liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount deposited from the date two years were completed.

7. As already mentioned in Ex.C3, complainant Tara Singh Jhand deposited Rs.1,48,000/- with the opposite party vide Ex.C3 and after that he paid no instalments to the opposite party. After that opposite party PUDA wrote letter to complete certain formalities vide letter NO.4757 dated 6/10/2K. Vide this letter Tara Singh Jhand complainant wa directed to complete certain formalities and after that complainant wrote some letters to the opposite party for delivering possession of plot No. 1338 to him.

Opposite party wrote letter No2913 dated 26/4/2003 to the complainant to deposit three instalments of the abovesaid plot which were already due on 29/6/02 and 29/12/02 and he was given 15 days time to explain and after that opposite party PUDA wrote another letter No. 9515 dated 19/9/03 to the complainant to deposit four instalments of his plot No.1338 which were due on 19/3/2003. These instalments were due from 29/12/2001 to 29/5/2003 and after that without giving him any opportunity and without giving sufficient time to deposit instalments and a letter No. 11115 dated 14/11/2003 Ex.C17 was written by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar to the complainant. It is mentioned in this allotment letter that allotment of plot No.1338 in the Urban Estate, Kapurthala to the complainant has been canceled vide office order No.10270-71 dated 21/10/03 on account of non payment of due instalments. Now we have to see whether order of the opposite party dated 21/10/03 vide which allotment of plot No.1338 was canceled is legally right.

In this regard it will be worth while to mention here that complainant during course of arguments explained that 25 residents of Urban Estate, Kapurthala filed complaints in the consumer forum, Kapurthala against PUDA and that complaint of 25 residents of Urban estate, Kapurthala were decided by this Forum on 27/10/04 and PUDA filed an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission against order of District Forum, Kapurthala dated 27/10/2004 and this appeal was decided by the Hon'ble State Commission on 10/10/05 and relief which was granted by this forum to the complainants were not changed and one of the relief granted to the residents of Urban Estate against PUDA was that District Forum Kapurthala directed PUDA " not to charge any type of penal interest either on instalments or for not raising construction and reframe the payment of instalments after sanctioning of zoning plan after 12/6/2002. The present case relates to Urban estate, Kapurthala which was developed by PUDA and zoning plan was sanctioned of this Urban Estate on 12/6/02 and complainant is one of the 717 plot holders of Urban Estate, Kaprthala Scheme, so the above mentioned instruction of the Hon'ble State Commission is also applicable in the case of the complainant ad in this case, opposite party PUDA was duty bound to reframe the payments of installments after sanctioning of zoning plan after 12/6/02 but the letter of opposite party bearing NO.9515 dated 19/9/03 and letter No.2913 dated 26/4/03 clearly indicates that payment of installments were not reframed by PUDA after sanctioning of zoning plan after 12/6/02 and the complainant was directed to pay installments as per old schedule and on the basis of this old schedule, the allotment of plot No.1338 measuring 400 sq. yds. to the complainant Tara Singh Jhand was canceled without reframing the schedule for payment of remaining instalments and without giving him sufficient time because on one hand, letter No.9515 was written to the complainant on 19/9/03 and allotment of his plot No.1338 was canceled by the opposite party/PUDA vide office order No.10270-71 dated 21.10.2003. On 19.9.2003, the complainant was given time to pay four installments which were pending prior to 12.6.2002 and PUDA was directed by the Hon'ble State Commission to reframe the payment of installments and the letters No.2913 dated 26.4.2003 and No.9515 dated 19.9.2003 clearly shows that payment of installments of the complainant was not rescheduled. So the order No.11115 dated 14.11.2003 and office order No.10270-71 dated 21.10.2003 vide which the allotment of plot No.1338 measuring 400 square yards in Urban Estate Kapurthala which was allotted to Tara Singh Jhand complainant, was canceled, is not legal and is null and void and operative in the eyes of law and this cancellation order is clear cut violation of directions issued by Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in Appeal No. 144 of 2005 decided on 10.10.2005, but interest/penal interest and penalty, if any will be chargeable from the complainant.

Let certified copies of order be delivered to the parties without delay and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

12.10.2009 Member Member President