ANIL KUMAR vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR/DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE complaint of Anil Kumar that instead of plot No. 187, Sector 12, Panchkula, an alternative plot should be allotted to him by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short HUDA) and it may be directed to refund the entire amount of penalty charged by it from the complainant for non-construction of the plot together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum has been dismissed by the District Forum-II, Chandigarh holding that the complainant was not a "consumer" and that the dispute was of civil nature. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that originally plot No. 187, Sector 12, Panchkula was allotted to Lt. Col. H.S. Kapoor. The aforesaid allottee transferred this plot to the complainant on 20.6.1995 and possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant on 21.6.1995. The complainant has averred that possession of the plot has not been effectively delivered to him inasmuch as the residents of nearby village Rella use the land for feeding cattle and for storage of cow-dung. It has further been averred that the complainant is entitled to alternative plot in some other Sector and refund of the sum of Rs. 17,010/- has been wrongfully recovered from the complainant for non-construction till December, 1996. The respondents filed a reply in the District Forum wherein it has been averred that the plot was originally allotted to Lt. Col. H.S. Kapoor and not to the complainant. The tentative price was also deposited by the aforesaid allottee and not by the complainant. The complainant paid only Rs. 8,400/- as extension fee and not Rs. 17,010/- as mentioned in the complaint. The District Forum and the Commission at Chandigarh have no territorial jurisdiction because the plot is situated at Panchkula, Haryana. The possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant on 21.6.1995 and the complaint deserves dismissal.

Whenever a complainant approaches the District Forum, he is required to disclose all the facts clearly. No where in the complaint, it has been mentioned that Lt. Col. H.S. Kapoor was the original allottee of this residential plot. It has also not been mentioned as to what was the price paid by the original allottee and what was the consideration paid by the complainant-transferee to the original allottee and when. In this context the conduct of a complainant in not disclosing full facts has been disliked by the National Commission in the case S. Lakshmanan v. The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank, III (1993) CPJ 311 (NC)=1986-94 National Commission and SC on Consumer Cases 525 (NS). There is a possession certificate Annexure C/10 which says that possession of plot in question measuring 30 x 40 metres known as 14 Marlas has been delivered to the complainant on 21.6.1995 under his own signatures. Relevant extracts of the possession letter are reproduced as under : "..... I Anil Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Uggar Sain Sharma, the allottee have taken the possession of the plot as per above dimensions allotted to me vide Estate Officer HUDA Panchkula re-allotment letter No. 9577 dated 20.6.1995. I undertake to follow the conditions as laid down in the allotment letter provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 (Erection of Building) Regulations, 1979 with the latest amendments. Further I have seen the plot and agrees to accept the possession. I will give at least one week notice to the Estate Officer before actually starting the construction. Memo No. S-3679 Dated : 21.6.1995 Sd/- Anil Kumar Name and Signature of allottee. Postal Address H.No. 205, Sector 12, Panchkula."

He also got the site plan sanctioned on 7.11.1996 an institution of the complaint on 20.2.1997 for an alternative plot by the transferee is not maintainable.

ON behalf of the appellant our attention has been invited to H.U.D.A. v. Smt. Sarla, II (1999) CPJ 51 (NC)=1986-99 CONSUMER 3380 (NS). This case related to a plot allotted by HUDA at Panipat. In the aforesaid case possession of the plot could not be delivered on account of construction of un-authorised colony. Here the facts are different inasmuch as possession was delivered to the complainant and his site plan for construction was also approved at his own request. The conclusion is that no interference is called for and the appeal is dismissed. There is no bar for the complainant to seek any other remedy if admissible under the law. Appeal dismissed.