Haryana

StateCommission

A/973/2015

HOUSING BOARD,HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHUL KUMAR YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

JASWANT SINGH

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First appeal No.973 of 2015

                                                  Date of Institution: 09.11.2015                       Date of Decision: 21.09.2016

 

1.      Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Haryana, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.      Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, Narnaul.

3.      Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Haryana, House No.641-642, Sarasvati Vihar, Near Chakarpur, Gurgaon.

…..Appellants

                                      VERSUS

Rahul Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ram Avtar Yadav , R/o Village Nehru Nagar, Post Office Bhungarka,Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh (Haryana).

          …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.  

 

                                 

For the parties:  Mr.Jaswant Singh, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Shashikant Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased plot No.33 in open auction on 28.05.2007 as detailed in para No.1 of the complaint.  Vide letter No.1549 dated 06.09.2007 he was asked to take possession of the plot. When he visited the plot it was found that the same was encroached by the owners of house Nos.751 and 752 and two electricity poles were also standing therein.  He brought this fact to the notice of opposite parties (O.Ps.) on 14.09.2007 and was assured that encroachment would be removed immediately.  He deposited Rs.2832/- on 04.10.2007 in the  office of electricity department for removal of poles. Thereafter also he requested to remove encroachment of the neighbourers, who had filed civil suit. Neither the encroachment was removed nor the sale deed was executed in his favour. O.Ps. be directed to remove the encroachment and deliver  the possession of vacant plot and pay compound interest on the amount deposited by him besides compensation for mental harassment etc.

2.      O.Ps. alleged that plot was auctioned “as-on-where -basis” which was clear from the perusal of condition No.21.  Owners of plot Nos.751 and 752 did not encroach plot purchased by complainant, so there was no question of any undertaking about removal of encroachment.  He was not assured about removal of poles etc. Civil suit filed by doctor Rajesh was dismissed for want of prosecution on 23.02.2012. As complainant did not deposit documents, so conveyance deed could not be executed in his favour.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Narnaul (in short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 25.08.2015 and opined as under:-

“1.               To deliver the possession of vacant/encroachment free plot to the complainant.

2.                to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession.

3.                to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

4.                To refund Rs.2832/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of deposit.

5.                to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

6.                To provide necessary amenities like road, water and sewer line etc. to the complainant.”

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      During the pendency of appeal appellants were directed to measure area of the plot and deliver possession. It was told by appellants that after measurement it was found that there was no encroachment on the plot in question.  Before measurement notice was also sent to complainant to be present at the spot.  These facts are clear from the perusal of affidavit of Estate Manager, but, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that there is encroachment. 

7.      This argument cannot be accepted because as per report and affidavit of Estate Manager, it is clear that at the time of measurement area of plot in question i.e. 150.09 sq. yard (size 53’-6” x 25’-3”) was laying vacant and there was no encroachment.  Appellants have also produced CD to prove this fact. Complainant has miserably failed to show that this report is altogether false. Even otherwise if after allotment third person encroaches upon the property, then authority is not responsible for the same and allottee should take appropriate action against the tresspassers.  Had therebeen encroachment at the time of allotment or when possession was offered then it could have been a different matter.  Despite measurements complainant has not come forward to take possession so no further direction is required.  Resultantly impugned order dated 25.08.2015 is hereby set aside.  However O.Ps. deliver possession to complainant as and when he approaches them and fulfil all the requirements. With this direction, appeal is allowed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification.

 

September 21st, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.