Haryana

Panchkula

CC/294/2018

RAM KUMAR AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION - Opp.Party(s)

DURGESH AGGARWAL

26 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA

                                                   

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	294 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	18.12.2018
Date of Decision	:	26.08.2019

 

 

Ram Kumar Aggarwal son of Late Sh. Chetan Dass Aggarwal through General Power of Attorney Smt. Sharda Aggarwal wife of Sh. Ram Kumar Aggarwal both r/o Flat No.49, Kendriya Vihar-II, Sector-25, Panchkula.

                                                                  ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     The Central Government Employee Welfare Housing Organization through its Chief Executive Officer, 6^th Floor, ‘A’ Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi.

2.     The Kendriya Vihar-II Apartment Co.Op. Group Housing (Maintenance) Society Ltd. Through its President, Group Housing Plot No.8, Sector-25, Panchkula.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Durgesh Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.  

Sh. R.C.Sharma,  Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. Jit Singh, OP No.2 in person.

ORDER

 

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is a senior citizen of 72 years of age and is suffering from chronic liver cirrhosis and other age related issues and is 100% disabled and bed ridden. Complainant is filing the present complaint through his wife, next friend, Guardian and GPA Smt.Sharda Devi. The Central Government Employee Welfare Housing Organization (hereinafter referred as CGEWHO) advertised a Housing scheme in the year 2002 consisting of 240 dwelling units known as Kendriya Vihar-II at GH-8, Sector-25, Panchkula. In pursuance of the advertisement, complainant applied  for a 3BHK flat in the above said scheme and a flat bearing no.C-49 was allotted  to the complainant by the OP No.1 vide their allotment letter dated 03.03.2004. The tentative price of 3BHK flat at the time of allotment was fixed as Rs.10,40,000/-, however at the time of completion of project, it was escalated up to Rs.15,66,900/- due to faulty calculations of OP No.1. He deposited the entire demanded amount of Rs.15,66,900/- in installments  upto year 2006 with his retrial benefits and was issued the possession cum occupation letter dated 27.12.2006 by the OP No.1/CGEWHO. It was specifically mentioned in the possession letter that the OP No.1 had already received full and final payment of the flat. True extract is reproduced herewith for kind reference:-

                “On receiving full and final pa`yment as per our final call-up letter dated 28^th August 2006, you may now take physical possession of flat no.49 in Block No.3 on First Floor of type-C allotted to you alongwith  Car stilt No.24 in Block no.3 at Sector-25, Panchkula from our Project Manager-Panchkula”.

 The OP No.1 CGEWHO put a restriction of 5 years on executing the conveyance deeds with the allottees to stop the further sale purchase of the dwelling units. After the end of this restriction i.e. in the year 2011, till 2017, OP No.1 had executed about 180 conveyance deeds in favour of the allottees out of total 240 allottees. The complainant met with a road accident in December 2010 and since then, he is bed ridden and become 100% permanent disabled and therefore, could not execute the conveyance deed. The CGEWHO received two demand notices bearing Memos nos. ZO004/EO012/UE020/DELET/000005462/18353 and ZO004/ EO012/UE020/DELET/000005462/18354 dated 19.12.2012 issued by the HUDA/HSVP demanding Rs.33,39,978/- and 2,22,18,247/- from CGEWHO as land cost enhancement. The CGEWHO slept over the above said demand notices dated 19.12.2012 issued by HUDA and did not informed the complainant or the OP No.2 i.e. KV-II Society with regard any of such Enhanced Land Compensation demand  a raised by HUDA till 29.05.2017. The letter dated 29.05.2017 was supplied to the complainant only on 08.05.2018 with the reply to the RTI application. The OP No.1 CGEWHO vide their letter dated 04.07.2018 informed the complainant along with other allottees that an amount of Rs.10,11,76,751/- is due to be paid to HUDA towards enhancement. It was also informed that HUDA has come out with an offer of 40% rebate on the payable amount under One Time Settlement Scheme and under the OTSS Scheme, after rebate of 40% the amount comes to Rs.6,07,06,050/- OP No.1 CGEWHO also sent the apportioning  calculations  for each type of flat with the OP No.2/HUDA. As per the apportioning calculations sent by the CGEWHO, the liability of complainant after availing the OTSS comes out to Rs.2,87,292/-. The KV-II Society also refused to accept the payment from the complainant and returned the cheque with an advice that it should be deposited with CGEWHO only. From the above mentioned/communications it is clear that the complainant is ready and willing to deposit his share towards enhancement under protest by reserving his rights to recover it at later stage i.e. after the decision of court cases but the OPs on the one hand are issuing demand notices and on other hand are not accepting the payment from the complainant. In December 2017, the complainant was in the dire need of money due to his protracted illness and for the knee surgery of his wife. Complainant requested Sh.Ishwar Lal, Project Manager, CGEWHO, Mohali (Authorized Representative of OP No.1) in the month of January 2018 to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant but it was delayed on the one pretext or the other and ultimately he refused to execute conveyance deed due to verbal orders of Mr.M.K.Maiti, Dy. Director, CGEWHO. He requested him to provide the copy of any written order on the basis of which the execution of conveyance deeds had been stopped but he could not provide any written order. Further, he sent a legal notice dated 13.04.2018 to the CGEWHO. In the legal notice, the complainant had specifically mentioned that he is ready to deposit the entire amount under protest till final decision in the matter but it was not replied at all. The complainant under compelled circumstances wrote a detailed grievance dated 30.06.2018 to the Prime Minister of India. The CGEWHO in reply to the above mentioned grievance to the PMO, had given a false/misleading and vague reply by citing a Pending Court Case i.e. CWP-16890 of 2018. It is pertinent to mention here that prayers and relief sought in the CWP-16890 of 2018 is totally different to the present grievance. Here in the present case the complainant is seeking relief of execution of conveyance deed as he had already made the full and final payment of the flat whereas the CWP-16890 of 2018 has been filed by The Kendriya Vihar-II Co.OP.Group Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. for grant of benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme to the society members. The two reliefs claimed are entirely different and OP No.1 hide their inaction and misdeeds in the matter and trying to mislead the superior officers and the Hon’ble Courts. The complainant filed an RTI application under the RTI Act. In the reply, the OP No.1 stated that demand notices sent by HUDA dated 19.12.2012 issued by the OP No.2 demanding Rs.33,39,978/- and 2,22,18,247/- respectively from the OP No.1 but till 29.05.2017, the OP No.1 did not informed the complainant or the resident welfare society with regard any of such Enhanced Land Compensation demand as raised by OP No.2. The denial of execution of conveyance deed by the CGEWHO that too after receiving full and final payment of the flat is against the principle of parity and natural justice and unethical trade practices. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being vague, baseless. On merits, OP No.1 stated that it is an autonomous body under the aegis of Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Govt. of India and is established for development of housing schemes at selected places, across India, on no profit – no loss basis as a welfare measure. It is submitted that the OP No.1 completed the project, handed over the possession and even executed conveyance deeds in respect of willing allottees.  It is submitted that the OP No.1 completed the project, handed over the possession and even executed conveyance deeds in respect of willing allottees. On the contrary huge number of beneficiaries and the OP No.2 are deliberately omitting  to play proactive role  to resolve the issue and are trying to evade  the liability  of paying enhancement and rather put the burden on CGEWHO, knowing fully well that CGEWHO does not have any capital of its own and is only welfare facilitating agency, which procured the plot of land from government agencies and constructed the residential units, which otherwise is difficult to get by individual government servants working at various places.  The project relevant for this case is set up on a plot measuring 19893.4 Sq. Metres, i.e. Plot No.GH.8, Sector-25, Panchkula. OP No.1 constructed the group housing project as per the approved plan and the dwelling units have already been handed over to the allottees since 2006. The maintenance of the group housing project has been handed over to complainant which is Society managed by democratically elected body by the allottees of the dwelling units in the said units in the said project. The Occupation certificate was granted by the authority vide their memo no.57/87 dated 14.07.2006. The enhancement initially demanded by HUDA was paid by the OP No.1. However, on 26.12.2012 the office of OP No.1 received two letters/memos, both dated 19.12.2012 comprising two separate demands for enhancement of cost allegedly on account of enhancement of compensation in acquisition cost of the land by the court. There were number of issues in the demand letters which were raised by OP No.1 in the interest of allottees. In one letter/memo bearing no.5462 revised payment schedule was provided showing the principal amount due as Rs.33,39,978.00. But in second letter demand was raised for an amount of Rs.2,22,18,247.00, by citing the reason that the Court has enhanced the acquisition cost of land in this sector i.e. Rs.1,116.84 per square meter, payable within 30 days from the date of issue of letter failing which the interest  @15%per annum was payable  for the period of delay. The receipt of two separate letters for one plot of land created doubts as to why two letters of enhancement for one plot of land had been issued. The OP No.1 could not understand why two letters of enhancement for one piece  of land had been issued. There was no reference to any order of court or any other authority to justify the fresh demand. Thus, the OP no.1 issued letter dated 21.01.2013, stating that such heavy amount of enhancement after a long intervening period was not understood. It is being an autonomous body of Govt. of India cannot act merely like a post office between HUDA and it’s beneficiaries and therefore the details were sought from officials of HUDA so as to be communicated to the beneficiaries for paying the dues. Further, it cannot afford to bear extra cost of enhancement on its own and the extra burden of cost has to be borne by its beneficiaries as it is welfare organization working on no profit no loss basis.  As such request was made to HUDA for supply of necessary information. The HUDA gave no response to the communication of it but after remaining silent for a period of more than 3 years the HUDA issued a show cause notice dated 29.04.2016 mentioning the area of land as 5 marla & “Auction” and calling upon the OP No.1 to show cause as to why penalty of Rs.38,40,750/- may not be imposed for non-payment of the amount enhancement. The demand of enhancement is prima facie misleading and factually wrong. Allottees are not convinced with the demand of further enhancement and are leaving the matter to be addressed by the OP No.1. It  has made best  possible efforts to obtain  the information  from the HUDA regarding  extra cost being demanded  with details  of calculations  but all such efforts have brought about no result as HUDA is avoiding to maintain transparency despite orders of Hon’ble High Court . Further, the matter is between complainant and HUDA. The OP No.1 had executed large number of Conveyance deeds earlier to the willing beneficiaries.  The complainant did not come forward for execution of conveyance deed at that time. Now, OP No.1 is trying to clear the issue of enhancement before executing further conveyance deeds. Meanwhile there was OTS/FFSS offered by HUDA thereby giving rebate for full and final settlement and widely publicized the same. The OP NO.1 also conveyed about the same to beneficiaries and OP No.2, so that they can avail the benefit if they so desire. However, the OP No.2 did not intimate any collective decision with regard to the payment being demanded by HUDA as enhancement. OP No.1 being  registered  welfare  Society  is to look  after the interest  of Society in all respects  and take decisions  as the project   has been handed over  by OP No.1 & op no.2 and accounts of project  maintained by OP No.1 stand closed.

                Although complainant is willing to avail the FFSS offered by HUDA by giving rebate but it does not serve the purpose as all the beneficiaries are required to pay the enhancement to avoid the resumption or to avail the full and final settlement scheme by HUDA. Beneficiaries have not come forward to even avail the settlement offers. The complainant himself did not come forward to have the conveyance deed executed, but at this OP no.1 has for the time being put the registration of left-over units on hold because of resumption proceedings initiated by HUDA. It is well settled that transferor cannot transfer title better than it itself has. Thus, till resolution of resumption proceedings the execution of conveyance deeds has been put on hold temporarily. Further, the cost indicated in the scheme brochure was tentative and final cost was determined correctly. Extra cost on account of enhancement is yet to be paid by the complainant and all other beneficiaries collectively. Every beneficiary and OP No.2 was aware of enhancement and nobody was willing to pay the enhancement in 2012 also. Further all the beneficiaries or OP No.2 was willing to pay the total cost of enhancement after rebate and the same was refused by HUDA. The OP No.1 could have easily  authorized any person to deposit  the amount but only  a few beneficiaries  intended to avail the benefit  of rebate  and HUDA refused  to accept  the partial payment as the default cannot be removed by making partial  payment of the total enhancement  payment. It is a common practice that HUDA never insists that any payment is to be deposited only by allottee of the plot. Any person can go and deposit the payment against the plot allotted. Even banks accept deposits by any person to any account without insisting that only account holders should come, but the payment offered by 2 or 3 allottees/beneficiaries out of 240 allottees does not serve the purpose as the demand of HUDA is much higher and to fully discharge the liability, total amount is required to be collected and deposited with HUDA. As such the OP No.1 has been requesting the OP No.2 to collect the amount of enhancement from all the beneficiaries and proceed further.

Further, the complainant has already been offered the possession and even invited for execution of conveyance deeds when resumption notices had not been issued by the HUDA. Once the notice for resumption of plot has been issued on account of default in payment of enhancement, further conveyance deeds have been stopped for the time being and only after the issue is resolved with HUDA, conveyance deeds would be executed. Even those who have got the conveyance deeds executed and there is specific  recital in the conveyance deed that the payments due as per  the law are to be deposited  by the allottee, the defaulters can still be issued notices of cancellation of allotment/conveyance  deed on account  of default  on their part. As such, the conveyance deed at this stage would not serve any purpose until the overall solution is found to the existing issues. The OP No.1 has not refused to execute the conveyance deed and only the issue of enhancement payment is required to be settled before proceeding further. So far as the sale of unit is concerned, there are various means to proceed as period of moratorium for sale of unit is already over. Even complainant can raise the funds against the property at this stage till the situation is resolved for executing the conveyance deeds. Under such circumstances the OP No.1 cannot be held responsible for beneficiaries not availing the benefit of schemes floated by HUDA and hence, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

Upon notice OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being vague, baseless. On merits, OP No.2 stated that OP No.2 is a Society registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act-1984. The main aim & object of the KV-II Society is to manage, administer & maintain the complex on which the dwellings or other buildings have been allotted to its registrants as enumerated in the Bye Laws. Further, the controversy involved in the matter is regarding non-execution of conveyance deed by the OP No.1 i.e. Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization (CGEWHO) despite taking full and final amount from the allottees. Being a maintenance society has no specific powers to receive any amount of enhancement from the allottees.  It is also a matter on record that till 2017 more than 165 number of conveyance deeds have been executed between the allottees and the CGEWHO and CGEWHO never demanded any enhancement from the allottess in whose favour conveyance deed had been executed. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The learned counsel for complainant has tendered the affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-17 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered the affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/11 and closed the evidence. Representative of OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 & R2/2 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the written arguments filed the parties and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

5.             The sole grievance of the complainant is with regard to the non-execution of conveyance deed, in its favour by the OP No.1, pertaining to flat no.C-49 located in Kendriya Vihar-II, Sector-25, Panchkula. The complainant has sought the relief on the ground that full and final payment has already been made by him as is evident from the possession letter. In this regard, the learned counsel for the complainant has invited our attention towards (Annexure C-3) which is reproduced as under:-

“On receiving full and final payment as per our final call-up letter dated 28^th August 2006, You may now take physical possession of flat  no.49, in block  no.3 on first floor of Type-C allotted to you alongwith car stilt no.24 in block no.3 at Sector-25, Panchkula, from our Project Manager-Panchkula”.

6.             It is further contended that the OP No.1/CGEWHO has already executed the conveyance deeds in favour of more than 180 similarly situated allottees out of total 240 allottees and that too without receiving the enhanced land costs and most of these conveyance deeds had been executed after receiving the Demand Notices Dated 19.12.2012 and Show Cause Notice for resumption u/s 17(1). It is contended that the case of the complainant is identical to those 180 allottees in toto and deserves to be treated with parity with other similarly situated persons.

        The OP No.1 has denied the execution of conveyance deed as prayed for by the complainant on the ground that HUDA has initiated the resumption process of the plot, on account of non-payment of enhancement amount by the allottees. The main thrust of the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for OP No.1 may be summarized as under:-

1. That the OP No.1 i.e. Central Govt. Employees Welfare Housing Organization referred, in short as CGEWHO, is an autonomous body under the aegis of Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Govt. of India and is established for development of housing schemes at selected places, across India, on no profit-no loss basis as a welfare measure and that the attribution qua OP No.1 that it is sleeping over the issue of enhancement cost is not correct as it is persistently pursuing the matter with HUDA Authorities for resolving it. The issue with regard to the payment of enhancement cost has not been resolved, so far, by HUDA Authorities, hence it is submitted that execution of conveyance deed would serve no purpose at this stage.
2. That the Hon’ble High Court while disposing of CWP No.18687 of 2012 vide its order dated 27.02.2016 has directed the HUDA Authority to upload the details of the subject-enhancement including  the reasons justifying the additional demand and such comprehensive self-speaking tentative order shall also be appended with individual demand notice to be served on the allottees so as to enable the allottees or their Residents Welfare Society(in representative capacity) to seek further information, if need be, for submitting their effective replies to the demand notices but HUDA Authority has not complied  with the aforesaid directions.
3. That OP No.1 had executed a large number of conveyance deeds earlier in favour of the willing beneficiaries but the complainant did not come forward for execution of the conveyance deed at that time and now OP No.1 is making serious efforts to get the issue of enhancement cleared/finalized before executing any further conveyance deed.
4.  That the OP No.1 conveyed about the one time settlement scheme/full and final settlement scheme (herein after referred to as OTS/FFSS respectively) offered by HUDA thereby giving rebate for full and final settlement to beneficiaries and OP No.2 so as to enable them to avail the benefit if they so desired but the OP No.2 did not intimate any collective decision with regard to the payment being demanded by HUDA as enhancement. It is submitted that OP No.1 being registered welfare Society is to look after the interest of Society in all respects and take decisions as the project has been handed over by OP No.1 to OP No.2 and accounts of project maintained by OP No.1 stand closed. It is submitted that although complainant is willing to avail the FFSS offered by HUDA by giving rebate but it does not serve the purpose as all the beneficiaries are required to pay the enhancement to avoid the resumption or to avail the full and final settlement scheme by HUDA.
5. That all the beneficiaries or OP No.2 were never willing to pay the total cost of enhancement after rebate but only a few beneficiaries intended to avail the benefit of rebate. It is submitted that HUDA refused to accept the partial payment as the default cannot be removed by making partial payment out of the total enhancement payable.
6. That the complainant has already been offered the possession and even invited for execution of conveyance deeds when resumption notices had not been issued by the HUDA. Now, the notice for resumption of plot has been issued on account of default in payment of enhancement, further conveyance deeds have been stopped for the time being and only after the issue is resolved with HUDA, conveyance deeds would be executed. Even in the cases of those who have got the conveyance deeds executed, there is specific recital in the conveyance deed that the payments due as per the law are to be deposited by the allottee and the defaulters can still be issued notices of cancellation of allotment/conveyance deed on account of default on their part; as such, the conveyance deed at this stage would not serve any purpose until the overall solution is found to the existing issues. The OP No.1 has not refused to execute the conveyance deed and only the issue of enhancement payment is required to be settled before proceeding further.
7. That so far as the sale of unit is concerned, there are various means to proceed as period of moratorium for sale of unit is already over. Even complainant can raise the funds against the property at this stage till the problem is resolved for executing the conveyance deeds. Under such circumstances the OP No.1 cannot be fastened with any liability.

7.             The authorized representative of the OP No.2 while reiterating its version as contained in the written statement stated that the OP No.2 Kendriya Vihar-II Apartment Cooperative Group Housing (Maintenance) Society Ltd, Sector-25, Panchkula is a Society registered under the Haryana  Cooperative Societies Act-1984 and its main aim & object is to manage, administer & maintain the complex on which the dwellings or other buildings have been allotted to its residents as enumerated in the Bye laws.

It is contended that OP No.2 i.e. KV-II being a maintenance society have no specific powers to receive any amount of enhancement from the allottees and the letter dated 12.07.2018 written by the OP No.1 i.e. CGEWHO to complainant is totally misleading and that it is discrimination on the part of OP No.1 i.e. CGEWHO to demand cost of illegal enchantment of land from remaining 75 beneficiaries.

8.             It is asserted that due to illegal action and irresponsible  behavior of the OP No.1 i.e. CGEWHO, a number of allottees are facing  harassment for non- execution of their conveyance deeds and are not  able to enjoy  their free hold property.

9.             After hearing the rival of contentions of the learned counsel for the parties as also the authorized representative of OP No.2 & scrutinizing the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully, it has been revealed that there is a serious dispute pertaining to the amount of enhancement cost of the plot. It is also evident that demand notices issued by HUDA requesting the OP No.1 to pay the enhancement cost contains factual errors and that OP No.1 is persistently perusing the matter with HUDA officials/officer to resolve the issue of enhancement cost. Therefore, the allegations leveled by the complainant against OP No.1 that it is sleeping over the matter are incorrect being contrary to actual factual position.

10.            The another complainant’s plea that OP No.1 cannot demand enhancement cost from the complainant as he has made full and final payment is also not tenable in view of the fact that enhancement cost are to be borne by the allottees collectively and not by the OP No.1 which is undisputedly an autonomous body and work on no profit and no loss basis. Moreover, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the aforesaid judgment has observed that the allottees would be liable to pay the actual and genuine enhanced allotment prices of the plots provided that adequate details are furnished to them in a fair, reasonable and transparent manner.

11.            Now, coming to the main plea of complainant with regard to the policy of discrimination adopted by OP No.1, it has been found that OP No.1 had executed about 180 conveyance deeds in favour of various allottees out of 240 allottees without receiving any amount of enhancement price. We also find that OP No.1 has executed more than nine conveyance deeds even after initiation of resumption proceedings as is evident from perusal of Annexure C-12. In response to RTI application, the OP No.1 has provided the information vide (Annexure C-15), the relevant part of which may be reproduced as under:-

Sr. No.	Query	Reply
1-4	-	-
5	-	-
6	-	-
7	-	-
8	At present CGEWHO is not executing the conveyance deeds in favour of the flat owners. Whether this is being done on the basis of ay written order and  if yes  than kindly provide me the copy of that written order.	Not on records
9	Whether there is any Rule/Regulation/ Provision in Bye laws or any other legal embargo for denial  of execution  of conveyance  deed after receiving  full and final amount from the allottees  and if yes than kindly provide me the copy of the same?	Not on records
10	-	-
11	Whether the CGEWHO has received any communication from HUDA to stop execution of conveyance deeds in favour of its lawful owners?	No

 

12.            From the above facts, it is crystal clear that there is no rule/regulations/provisions in bye-laws empowering the OP No.1 to deny the execution of conveyance deed after receiving full and final payment from the allottees. The denial by the OP No.1 to execute the conveyance deed as prayed for by the complainant suffers from serious legal infirmities as we find that 180 conveyance deeds has already been executed by it out of 240 and that there is no legal embargo/impediments over the OP No.1 to execute the conveyance deed in favour of complainant during the pendency of resumption proceedings. We do not agree with the contention of the OP No.1 that execution of conveyance deed during the pendency of resumption proceedings would be meaningless and serve no purpose at this stage. The OP no.1 has no authority to apply different yardsticks to different allottees at its own whims & fancies. Since OP No.1 has executed several conveyance deeds even after the initiation of the resumption proceedings, it cannot be permitted to take the shelter of the plea of pendency of resumption proceedings in the case of the complainant. It is well settled propositions of law that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value. In the present case, the OP No.1 has miserably failed to justify as to how & why it is denying the execution of conveyance deed in the case of complainant.

13.            Moreover, Huda has not asked OP No.1 to stop the further execution of conveyance deed. Therefore,  in our considered opinion, the assertions of OP No.1 that execution of conveyance deed in favour of complainant would serve no purpose and meaningless at this stage till the issue of enhancement cost is not finally settled & resolved, is just a figment of its imagination & the same does not contain even an iota of truth. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to mention here that conveyance deed contains a special recital in it authorizing the OP No.1 to cancel/revoke  the conveyance deed, in case, enhancement cost is not paid by the allottees. Therefore, there is no bar over the OP No.1 to recover the amount of enhancement cost even after the execution of conveyance deed. Needless to mention here that no person can be deprived of his property save/except by the authority of law as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid discussion leads us to irresistible conclusion that there is a lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.1 while declining to execute the conveyance deed in favour of complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief. The complaint is dismissed qua the OP No.2 as no relief has been claimed against it.

14.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP No.1 :-

1. That OP No.1 shall execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant as prayed for. It is made clear that OP No.1 shall inform the complainant about the value/amount of the stamp papers to be purchased by the complainant within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the copy of order and thereafter, OP No.1 shall get the conveyance deed executed within a period of one month.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/-as cost of litigation.

 

15.            The OP No.1 shall comply with the order as directed above failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OP No.1. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:26.08.2019

 

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                               President

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                         Satpal                                        

President