CHARANJIT LAL vs Chief Administrator, HUDA

COMPLAINANT Charanjit Lal, whose address given in the complaint is Booth No. 22, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh, has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the instant complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Haryana Urban Development Authority in the matter of delivering vacant physical possession of plot No. 1569 measuring 250 square yards, in Sector 23, Urban Estate, Sonepat.

ACCORDING to the complainant, the aforesaid residential plot No. 1569, Sector 23, Sonepat was allotted to him on 22.8.1991 vide allotment letter No. 8694 dated 22.8.1991. The complainant had paid the entire price of the plot and there is no outstanding dues against him. HUDA had failed to deliver vacant physical possession of the plot to him, despite repeated requests made by him to the opposite party. The complainant had also approached the HUDA on 14.9.1998 to deliver him physical possession of the plot and a legal notice was also served upon the HUDA, that too, of no avail. However, the complainant was informed that the area, where the plot is situated, has not been developed so far. The complainant has further alleged that as per the HUDA Act possession of the plot is to be offered within two years of the issuance of the allotment letter after completion of the development work, i.e. upto 22.8.1993. The complainant has intended to construct 2.5 floors including basement, which comes to 3.5 floors. In between 1993 and 1998 the cost of construction has increased manifold. As due to callous attitude of the opposite parties, vacant physical possession of the plot was not delivered to him for a pretty long time, there is a deficiency in service on the part of HUDA and has claimed the following reliefs : (i) To hand over vacant physical possession of the plot. (ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as cost of escalation from 1993 to 1998. (iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs by way of mental agony and physical torture for pursuing the matter. (iv) To pay Rs. 1.8 lacs on account of rent paid for the accommodation of his family. (v) To pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for expenditure on journey undertaken and correspondence with HUDA. (vi) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation charges.

Notice of the complaint was issued and in pursuance of which, HUDA has filed the written statement, wherein HUDA has taken a plea that development of civil works, i.e. W/S Sewerage, S.W.D. and Roads completed in the area subject to electrification report from the concerned S.D.E. The S.D.E., HUDA, Electrical Sub-Division, Faridabad has reported completion of electrification in the area of plot allotted. The HUDA has offered possession to the complainant vide letter No. 306 dated 13.1.1999, which was sent through registered A.D. The HUDA has further pleaded that price of the plot was tentative and can be increased as per Clause No. 9 of the allotment letter. The competent Court had enhanced the compensation and demand notice of enhanced amount was issued to the complainant on 13.8.1997, but the complainant has not deposited the enhanced compensation. It has also been stated that the complainant has never approached the opposite party-HUDA for delivery of possession of the plot. Again it has been denied that the complainant had ever visited the office of HUDA for taking physical possession of the plot. It has also been pleaded that no legal notice was ever received by HUDA and there is no nexus between offer of possession and escalation in the cost of construction. Replication to the written statement was filed by the complainant in which he reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and controverted the plea of HUDA.

Thereafter, the parties have led their evidence. Complainant Charanjit Lal filed his own affidavit and the affidavit of Surveyor S.M. Kharbanda in which the allegations made by the complainant has been substantiated. In rebuttal, Shri U.S. Sohal, Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat filed his affidavit in which the stand of HUDA was reiterated. Thereafter the parties have closed their evidence.

WE have heard the Counsel of both sides and have also scanned the entire record. After taking into consideration the respective pleas of the parties, we have reached to the conclusion that HUDA had failed to deliver the vacant physical possession of the plot allotted to the complainant even after a lapse of two years from the date of allotment of the plot on account of non-development of the area. The complainant has been able to prove that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant in the year 1991, but possession of the same has not been delivered so far. In view of the matter, we allow the complaint by directing HUDA to deliver vacant physical possession of the plot within a period of one month from the date of receipt of our order, so as to enable the complainant to start construction thereon. (ii) So far as compensation for escalation in the cost of construction is concerned, complainant Charanjit Lal has produced on record affidavit of Mr. S.M. Kharbanda, Surveyor to the effect that after 1993 there has been considerable escalation in the cost of construction in the vicinity of the area of the disputed plot. The Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in Rajnish Chander Sharda v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, II (1995) CPJ 70 (NC), wherein the Hon''ble National Commission had issued direction that HUDA should pay compensation for escalation in the cost of construction from 1982 to 1994 in accordance with construction done under "Unified Building Bye-laws National Capital Territory of Delhi". The escalation in the cost of construction of a house should be worked out on the basis of the cost of construction index of the C.P.W.D. in 1982 to 1994. The compensation for escalation should, therefore, be got determined through the good offices of the C.P.W.D. This Commission is not inclined to leave the matter to HUDA for calculating the escalation in the cost of construction. In the present case, the complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 10 lacs on account of escalation in the cost of construction on a 10 marla plot, which is highly exaggerated. The complainant has alleged that had the possession been delivered to him in time, he would have constructed a 2 storey house. The complainant has also stated that he has to construct a basement also. It is pertinent to note that basement can be constructed only with the approval of the Architect Wing of the HUDA office. There is no proposed building plan of the house which the complainant intended to construct. In the absence of the same, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the complainant that he would have constructed 2 storey house on a 10 marla plot. Had the complainant constructed a house, he would have spent money on the construction of the house. Since he has not constructed the house, the amount remained with him and he must have earned interest on the said amount. In view of the matter, we are of the considered view that a compensation of Rs. 10 lacs on account of escalation in the cost of construction on a 10 marla plot is highly exaggerated. However, we award a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-, i.e. about 1/6th of the amount claimed, which, to our mind, shall adequately meet the ends of justice. (iii) The complainant has also prayed that a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs be granted to him for mental agony and physical harassment. WE are not inclined to award him any compensation as there is no word in the complaint that he had suffered any physical torture nor there is a certificate of any Government doctor that the complainant had suffered from depression due to non-delivery of the physical possession of the plot. However, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the complainant on account of harassment caused to him for non-delivery of physical possession after two years of the allotment of the plot. (iv) The complainant has claimed Rs. 1.8 lacs on account of house rent paid by him for the accommodation, which he had hired for his family. The Commission is not inclined to award any compensation on account of house rent for the reason that the complainant has nowhere given the particulars of the house, which he alleged to have taken on rent for his family, i.e. number of the house, city and place and name of the landlord nor there is any rent receipt. The only address given in the complaint is of Booth No. 20, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh, which too is the address of someone else and not his own address. As such, this claim is declined. (v) The complainant has further claimed Rs. 50,000/- on account of travelling expenses for visiting HUDA office and on correspondence with HUDA. This amount is highly exaggerated as there is no proof that the complainant had incurred such a heavy amount on travelling especially when he had not given any mode of conveyance. There is only one document on the record that too in the hand of the complainant that he had visited the office of HUDA. However, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is awarded to the complainant as travelling expenses. (vi) The complainant has also prayed that he had paid Rs. 11,000/- fee to the Counsel, but there is no certificate of the Counsel that he had received such amount. However, we award Rs. 2,200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complaint stands allowed in the manner indicated above. Complaint allowed with costs.