C.P.SUHAG vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS revision petition is filed by Mr. C.P. Suhag, the original Complainant in Complaint No. 2084 dated 8.12.1998 filed in Gurgaon District Forum for not giving possession of the plot.

BRIEF facts of the case are : The revision petitioner was allotted a plot No. 1284-P, Sector 21, Gurgaon, Haryana by the respondent authority. However, despite the receipt of entire amount from the petitioner the respondent authority failed to deliver the possession to the complainant. The respondent submitted in the District Forum that various writ petitions were filed by the land owners challenging the acquisition before the High Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court and hence the development work got hampered and accordingly the possession of the plot could not be handed over to the complainant. District Forum in its order dated 12.8.1994 directed as under : "The plot was allotted in the year 1986 and already more than 8 years have elapsed during which the complainant has been put to uncertainties. Thus the respondent has finalised the proposal at the earliest and the alternative plot in the same sector or preferably in Sector 22 and 23 be allotted to the complainant and possession be delivered to him within two months from today."

Despite the above direction respondent did not give the possession to the complainant and on complainant''s execution Petition No. 192/1996 before the District Forum under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, District Forum allowed the same on 28.10.1996 and directed as under : "In the circumstances it is ordered that the possession of the plot be delivered to the applicant within one month from today and from 1.11.1996, the respondent shall pay interest on the entire deposit of the applicant against the original plot/alternative plot at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of deliver of possession."

PURSUANT to the aforesaid direction, respondent authority allotted Plot 1-P in Sector-5 to the complainant but at the enhanced price of the plot demanding additional amount from the complainant. Aggrieved by this demand for enhanced price to the plot, complainant filed an application before the Gurgaon District Forum which directed as under : "It is ordered that the respondent shall charge the same rate of the alternative plot from the complainant at which the original plot was allotted to him. The respondent is further directed to pay interest @ 15% from the date of deposit against the original plot till 1.10.1996 and interest @ 18% from 1.11.1996 to 11.7.1997 as per order of this Forum."

The respondent authority filed a revision petition against the order passed by the District Forum before the State Commission in Revision Petition No. 24/2000. The respondent authority stated that plot No. 1-P/5, Gurgaon has already been offered vide Memo No. 1499 dated 28.4.1997 and that the revision petitioner has taken over the physical possession vide Memo No. 2307 dated 11.7.1997. It is further submitted that the interest on the deposited amount was paid and adjusted in his account and the rate of alternative plot No. 1-P/5 has been demanded as per HUDA policy. Since the rate of alternate plot is Rs. 2,175 per sq. mtr. the demand was made for the enhanced price as per terms and conditions of the letter of allotment. State Commission allowed the plea taken by the respondent authority and set aside the order of the District Forum by their order dated 8th December, 2004 in Revision Petition No. 24 of 2000 as under : "Proposition of law is well settled that in Execution Application Court can neither add or deduct any relief granted in the original order and as such the order cannot be altered in the Execution Proceedings hence order is to be implemented to as decree of a Court and Court cannot go beyond the decree. It is pertinent to note that, if the opposite party- HUDA had failed to comply with the order, the District Forum shall impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine, or both, as per Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. But the District Forum cannot go beyond the original order in any manner. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is quashed and the revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."

THE complainant aggrieved by this order dated 8.12.2004 preferred the present petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent authority argued mainly on the ground that the District Forum cannot go beyond their own original order and change the very face of it by directing the respondent to charge the same rate of the original plot for the new plot and direct further to pay interest etc. in the execution petition. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that vide memo No. 2851 dated 27.7.1998 the complainant has been intimated that the cost of the alternative plot No. 1-P, Sector 5, Gurgaon comes to Rs. 18,35,856.50 out of which only a sum of Rs. 3,16,540.70 was deposited against plot No. 1284-P, Sector 21, Gurgaon. Taking into consideration of the interest component, as directed by the District Forum, the respondent in their letter of 27.7.1998 intimated that a sum of Rs. 5,90,196.61 is recoverable within 30 days from the date of issue of the said letter failing which interest @ 18% p.a. shall be charged from the complainant. We carefully perused the record and heard both the parties at length . It is an admitted fact that the plot was allotted in the year 1996 and possession was delayed by the respondent due to writ petitions filed before the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the acquisition of land. The complainant has nothing to do with these litigations and he paid the entire amount within time and plot was also allotted to him. The physical possession of the alternate plot was delivered on 11.7.1997. It is also not in dispute that the complainant was allotted alternative plot in lieu of the old one, the question of price of the rate of plot was never decided initially by the Forum or through any letters by the respondent authority. The order of the District Forum in the Execution No. 192/11-90-96 which has been decided on 28.10.1996 notices that in the written reply of the respondent it is stated that alternative plot No. 1-P/Sector -5 has been allotted to the complainant but the possession shall be offered after the completion of the entire development work. In the said reply there was no mention of any expected time during which completion of development work can be achieved. Even after two years from that letter, the respondent has not completed development work. This clearly shows that the respondent authority was not contemplating about the question of increasing the price of the alternative plot even at that stage. There is no mention whatsoever leave alone in the order of the District Forum but even in their own correspondence. For the first time under Memo No. 2851 dated 27.7.1998 the new cost of the alternative plot was calculated to be Rs. 18,35,856.50. After physical possession has been taken by the complainant on 11.7.1997 respondent authority has suddenly come up with the demand of the above exaggerated amount of a new rate of alternative plot. Although the respondent authority argued, that District Forum directed in Execution Petition the rate of the plot and interest to be awarded, and that it is not tenable under law. Keeping in view, the above contention raised by the respondent authority, we have considered all the documents on record and found that there is deficiency in service by the respondent authority for having delayed in giving the possession of the plot after receiving the entire payment for the same. The complainant cannot be made to pay for the endless delay in developing the area. The litigations they were involved with in Civil Courts and further not intimating at any stage that there would be extra cost of alternative plot. It is their own admission that even in the year 1996 they were not even clear as to when the entire development is expected to be completed. When the respondent authority themselves are unsure regarding, (a) acquisition of plot; (b) which plot to be developed; (c) expected time to complete the development work; and (d) not communicating regarding rates of alternative plots, it does not lie in their mouth to argue on the technical plea that the District Forum has in the Execution Petition gone beyond the original order. However, without going into the merits of this technical plea, we wish to decide the case on merits, but restrict ourselves to the point of inordinate delay in allotting the alternative plot. We direct the respondent authority to maintain the original rate demanded for the original plot and further pay interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of depositing against the original plot till 1.10.1996 and interest @ 12% from 1.11.1996 to 11.7.1997 along with cost of Rs. 10,000. We set aside the order of the State Commission and District Forum. Revision Petition allowed.