ESTATE OFFICER, H.U.D.A.,GURGAON vs GIRDHAR LAL YADAV

HARYANA Urban Development Authority has come up in appeal against the order dated 2nd of June, 1995 passed by the District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby the complaint of one Girdhar Lal Yadav for the delivery of possession of the residential plot allotted to him on 5th of January, 1988 has been accepted by issuing the following directions : "So, from the date the other persons were delivered possession, the complainant deserves to be compensated with interest. So, it is ordered that the respondent shall pay interest to the complainant at the rate of 15% p.a. on the amount deposited by him by that date, since the date of possession of plots to other persons in the same sector till the date of delivery of possession. The complainant had approached the District Forum, Gurgaon with the grievance that even though he had paid the entire amount of Rs. 1,29,326/- as full and final payment of all the instalments including the enhanced amount with interest, yet the possession of the residential plot had not been delivered to him despite repeated requests. Not only that, it was further pleaded that other persons similarly situated had already been delivered the possession of their residential plots even in the same sector i.e. Sectors 23, 23-A, Part (ii), Gurgaon. The HUDA in its reply had admitted the allegations by pleading that as the development was still in progress and had not been completed as yet, the possession would be delivered as soon as the development work was completed. Trying to be specific, it was also pleaded that almost all other development work stood completed except the laying of the electricity lines which job should not take long. Not convinced by the stand of HUDA, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and issued the aforesaid direction for the delivery of possession and the payment of interest at the rate of 15% on the amount deposited by the complainant.

IN appeal before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-HUDA has vehemently contented that since the development work had taken long due to some unavoidable circumstances, the HUDA should not be penalised with interest at the rate of 15%, as there was no deficiency in service or negligence on its part. It has also been contended that the general consensus of the various State Commissions and Courts has been to consider a period of three years, a reasonable period for the development of the plots. Therefore, on that account also, the HUDA could not be held liable atleast for the period of three years commencing from the date of allotment. IN reply to that Shri Girdhar Lal Yadav complainant-respondent, who appeared in person and has also submitted written submission, has strongly refuted the contention of the learned Counsel for the HUDA by bringing to our notice, that as and when there has been delay on the part of allottees in the payment of any instalment to HUDA, rate of interest charged by HUDA has always been @ 15% and even more than that. Apart from that when the HUDA has already developed number of other sectors and even in Sectors 23, 23-A itself number of other allottees have already been delivered the possession, there is clear deficiency in service in not delivering the possession to the complainant-respondent. Since the allotment was made in 1988, more than adequate time has already been allowed to HUDA to complete the development works. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the direction issued by the learned District Forum regarding the delivery of possession and payment of interest is unexceptionable. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.