Haryana

StateCommission

A/119/2019

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH JINDAL - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER BAKSHI

04 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

First Appeal No :         119 of 2019

Date of Institution:       31.01.2019

Date of Decision :                 04.07.2019

 

 

 

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 3, HUDA Estate, Rohtak through its Estate Officer.

 

2.      The Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 3, HUDA, Rohtak.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

 

Rajesh Jindal son of late Sh. Yashwant Kumar Jindal, Jindal Advocate, 692-A/19, Green Road, Rohtak.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the appellants.

 

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          The opposite parties have filed the instant appeal for challenging the order passed on 05.04.2017 by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite parties directed to transfer the plot in his name and execute the conveyance deed; to get removed the electric transformer, poles, junction box, electric wires around the plot; to remove the encroachment from the plot and after the removal of hindrances, issue notice to the complainant to take clear physical possession; not to charge any interest, penalty extension fee, etc from the complainant; to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of deposit till the delivery of actual physical possession to the complainant; to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant and to comply with the order within one month failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay punitive damages of Rs.500/- per day from 06.05.2017 till handing over the possession of the plot to the complainant. 

2.      According to the complainant, his father was allotted Plot No.1576(P) measuring 14 marlas in Sector 2 (Part), Urban Estate, Rohtak by the opposite parties on 18.04.2000.  All the installments of the plot were deposited regularly in the office of the opposite parties and no amount was due on the said plot.  After the death of his father on 21.03.2012, he became the owner of the plot by virtue of will executed by his late father.   The complainant submitted all the documents with the opposite parties alongwith transfer fee of Rs.1,124/- for transfer of the plot in his name.  The opposite parties again demanded the documents and the complainant once again submitted those documents in original.  According to the complainant, a high powered electricity transformer stood erected on four poles by the site of the boundary of the plot.  Besides the transformer, one electric pole and electricity junction box also stood erected.  There were several incidents of explosion and fire of transformers resulting in huge loss of life and property to nearby occupants.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to remove and shift the transformer etc and to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot, which was followed by a number of reminders but to of no effect.  There was encroachment on the plot and the actual clear physical possession of the plot could not be delivered by the opposite parties to him until and unless the hindrances were removed by the opposite parties and as per the information sought under the Right to Information Act, the construction of the roads was completed on 08.05.2003 and the provision of storm water, sewerage was completed on 15.11.2004.  Unless and until the area was not fully developed, the possession of the plot could not have been offered to the allottee.  The complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties but the same was not replied.  There were hindrances in the construction of the house in the present situation.  The opposite parties failed to deliver actual and clear physical possession of the plot to the complainant despite deposit of the installments.  The construction cost had escalated many folds. However, no construction work could be started on the plot due to delay in delivery of physical possession of the plot.  Due to the said act of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment.  As such, while filing the complaint, he prayed for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to transfer the plot in his name; to execute the conveyance deed in his favour; to remove the electric transformer, poles, junction box, electric wires around the plot and also to remove encroachment on the plot.  He also sought directions to the opposite parties not to charge any interest, penalty, extension fee till those hindrances were not removed and to deliver actual clear physical possession of the plot besides paying interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.2,00,000/-on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their reply stating therein that the father of the complainant was allotted the plot on 18.04.2000.  The complainant failed to deposit the balance amount of installments, extension fee, service tax etc, which came to Rs.4,40,631/- upto 17.02.2016 despite repeated requests and reminders by the opposite parties.  By virtue of letter dated 14.08.2015, the complainant was requested to deposit the certified copy of will, indemnity bond, acceptance affidavit with three specimen signatures duly attested by Executive Magistrate but the complainant failed to deposit the installments due and as such, his application for transfer of the plot could not be entertained. The complainant was well aware of the fact that an amount of Rs.4,40,631/- was lying outstanding but instead of depositing the same, he filed the present complaint on wrong facts.  It is also mentioned that the father of the complainant was made aware vide letter dated 02.09.2004 that the electricity transformer had been installed as per rules and the same was not creating any hindrances to him.  However, he did not raise any dispute regarding transformer.  There was no encroachment at all or any hindrance in the construction of the house.  Accordingly, the opposite parties sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.      This Commission has heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the record, which stands requisitioned.  The issue involved between the parties is as to whether there was any encroachment in the plot of the complainant or around the said plot due to which it is not feasible and practicable for the complainant to start with the construction.

5.      In order to determine the said issue, the State Commission had summoned the record so as to peruse the report of Local Commissioner (Exhibit C-41), site plan Exhibit C-42, and the photographs Exhibit C-43.  In the report submitted by the Local Commission, it was stated that due to the hindrances and encroachment besides hanging electric wires, the construction on the plot was not feasible.  The heavy electricity transformer, electric wire junction box and hanging wires were hazardous for the life and property.  The said hindrances and encroachment had covered about 10 feet front on the right side of the plot and about 8-9 feet on the other side of the plot.  Therefore, no gate for the entry in the house could be installed on the right side of the plot, being corner plot and the same would require shifting.  It was further mentioned that about 80-90 feet away from the plot, there was green belt and one transformer installed there on two pillars and other two pillars were empty and the said open space was sufficient where heavy transformer etc could be easily shifted.  Upon a look at the photographs (Exhibit C-43), it is clearly discernible that a large number of high tension electric wires were found hanging on the poles just by the side of the plot allotted to the complainant.  By no stretch of imagination can it be said that despite the presence of the transformers and electric wires, the complainant can still raise the construction over his plot.

6.      In view of the above, the State Commission finds that no relief can be granted to the opposite parties in the present appeal.  The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants-opposite parties at the time of filing the appeal be released in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 04.07.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK