GULSHAN LAL BHATIA vs CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

SHRI Gulshan Lal Bhatia, SHRI Sanjeev Bhatia and SHRI Chandan Bhatia, the complainants applied for a 2 kanal plot bearing No. 181 Sector-18, Chandigarh and deposited 10% of the bid amount and the balance 15% of the amount was deposited amounting to Rs. 19,25,000/- but they failed to get that plot because it came out to be 1 kanal plot. The complainants have prayed that there is a deficiency in service for not allotting 2 kanals plot as advertised in the press and as per the bid made by the complainant. The complainants have prayed for the grant 24% interest on the amount deposited with the respondent- Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and grant of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for financial and consequent mental harassment due to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

BRIEFLY the complainant in response to the advertisement in "The Tribune" dated 5.11.1997, 9.11.1997 and 16.11.1997 applied for 2 kanal plot bearing No. 181, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh in an auction, which was held on 19.11.1997. At the time of the bid the complainants were declared the highest bidder by the respondents. They deposited 10% of the bid amount and balance 15% of amount opted for instalment payment, thus they paid 25% premium to the respondents which amounted to Rs. 19,25,000/- and waited for issuance of allotment letter. The respondents issued allotment letter bearing No. 4277/BPL-1996 8/G-7 dated 13.2.1998 (Annexure C-2). They were shocked to note that the area of the plot in the allotment letter had been mentioned as 500.50 sq. yards (1 kanal) instead of 1000 sq. yards (2 kanals) area as advertised and auctioned by the respondents. The complainants immediately wrote a letter dated 7.4.1998 (Annexure C-3) and requested for suitable amendment in the column of the area of the plot and they also informed the respondent that they will not pay the ground rent and interest etc. till necessary change is made.

The complainants again sent a reminder to the respondents dated 23.4.1998 (Annexure C-4) along with the complaint. Instead of taking the remedial measures the respondents-Estate Officer sent a show cause notice to the complainants dated 30.7.1998 (Annexure C-5), asking the complainant as to why the lease of the plot should not be cancelled. The complainants again requested the Estate Officer vide their letter dated 20.9.1998 (Annexure C-6) to correct the allotment letter and not to skirt from the main issue. Finally, when all efforts failed the complainants filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh against the order passed by the respondent/Estate Officer, Chandigarh. The Chief Administrator, Chandigarh passed the order in appeal after making careful scrutiny of the record and after summoning the respondent Estate Officer in person before him. The copy of the order is at Annexure C-8 and the relevant portion is reproduced as under : "I have heard both the parties at length and have carefully perused the available record. It is an admitted fact that the plot in question was advertised as two kanals plot. Even though Assistant Estate Officer has stated that before the start of the auction proceedings, it was clarified that this is a kanal plot, there is no documentary evidence to prove this verbal contention of the AEO. There is no doubt that in this case the officials responsible for auction of properties have failed to discharge their duties efficiently and in the process considerable harassment and agony has been caused to the appellant. Rather than accepting their mistake with due humility, the officers concerned have gone ahead and caused further loss to the appellant by imposing a penalty of forfeiture. This order of AEO cannot be sustained in view of the discussion of the case above. In view of the fact that this plot was advertised as a two kanals plot and later turned out to be a plot of one kanal size, which the appellant claim that they were unaware of, I am of the considered view that the auction proceedings of this plot are void-ab-initio. Accordingly, I order that the entire premium of the plot deposited by the appellant with the Estate Officer be refunded to the party forthwith within a period of one week from the despatch of this order. I also order that Smt. Geetanjali G. Kundra IAS, SDM (E) should hold a detailed inquiry into this matter and fix responsibility of the officials concerned who caused this misery and hardship to the appellants by recording and advertising the size of the plot as two kanals whereas it was actually a one kanal plot. This inquiry report may be submitted to the Chief Administrator within a period of one month."

The complainants have averred that the respondents have been found deficient in service and even the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh has confirmed it. They have prayed for the following compensation/damages ; (i) That alternatively the opposite party may kindly be directed to make payment of 24% interest per annum for the period for which the opposite party retained the amount of Rs. 19,25,000/- illegally. (ii) Opposite party may kindly be burdened with exemplary damages for the mental harassment suffered by the complainants and the opposite party may kindly be directed to release the amount of damages and interest as claimed in favour of the complainants. The amount of Rs. 5 lacs may kindly be directed to pay 24% interest and the amount of damages as claimed to the complainants in the interest of justice. The 24% interest may kindly be awarded from the date of auction till it is paid to the complainants by the opposite party. (iii) Any other order, relief which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit may also kindly be granted."

The respondents have raised preliminary objections inter alia been provided in Section 19 of the Capital of Pb. (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, as under : "19. Bar of jurisdiction-No Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit for proceeding in respect of the recovery of any arrears or penalty under Section 8 or in respect of the resumption of any suit or building or both, as the case may be, under Section 8-A or the forfeiture of any money under that section or in respect of any order made, by the Central Government or any other authority in the exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act."

It has been averred that the Chief Administrator had decided the appeal of the complainant vide order dated 10.8.1999 (Annexure C-8) and in case the complainant had any grouse against the order of the Chief Administrator, the complainant could approach the appropriate Court by challenging the order. Hence the Hon''ble Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this matter alone. In the second preliminary objection, it has been submitted that the complainant purchased the plot in an open auction and deposited 25% of the bid money. There is no provision to the payment of interest on bid money and hence the claim of the complainant is without any instructions and untenable and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

ON merits, the respondents have not repudiated the auction of residential sites and residential plot No. 181, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh as shown in the category of 2 kanals. ON 19.11.1997, when the terms and conditions of allotment were announced and at the time of auction, the area of each site was announced and which was within the knowledge of the complainant that the area of the said plot was 500.50 sq. yds. and the measurement of the said site has also been announced. It has been averred that it was in the knowledge of the complainant that the area of the plot is 500.50 sq. yds, and the question of giving the bid for 2 K does not arise. The payment has been made by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the auction. The letters which the complainants wrote to the respondents are not based on the facts. The complainants had actually applied for the surrender of the said site and there is no provision for surrender in the rules and as such show cause notice was issued vide letter No. 24133/RPL- 19968 dated 30.7.1998 and the complainants in response to the show cause notice replied vide letter dated 20.8.1998. It has further been averred by the respondents that the amount paid by the complainant have been refunded as per the orders of the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh and an enquiry for fixing the responsibility of the officials concerned who caused misery and hardship to the appellants by recording and advertising the size of the plot as two kanals is going on before Mrs. Geetanjali G. Kundra, S.D.M. The size and measurement of the said plot was announced at the time of auction and no deficiency in service is involved in this case and no interest is payable. After hearing the learned Counsel of both the parties and after carefully perusing the affidavits, letters and other documents on record, this Commission is of the opinion that the deficiency of service on the part of the respondents has been established, even by their own senior officer, i.e. Chief Administrator, Chandigarh. The respondents are liable to pay interest @ 18% on 10% of the total cost, i.e. Rs. 7,75,500/- from 19.11.1997 to 16.12.1997 and on Rs. 19,25,000/- from 17.12.1997 to 17.8.1999 within two months. The respondents are also liable to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental harassment and negligence to the complainants. Complaint allowed.