Gurvinderjit Singh vs STATE OF PUNJAB

THIS Original Complaint has been filed in the following facts and circumstances: Vide application dated December 29, 1983 complainant Gurvinderjit Singh made an application to Punjab Urban Development Authority (in short ''PUDA'') OP 2 for allotment of a residential plot measuring 500 sq. yards in SAS Nagar, Mohali. Along with his application a deposit of Rs. 10,000 was made, which was duly accepted and the complainant was allotted registration No. R -79/500. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant did not hear anything regarding the fate of his application from OP 2 for a sufficient long time. He visited the office of the Estate Officer of PUDA at Mohali to enquire about the status of his application. In the year 1994 when he visited the office of the opposite party he was told that the price of the plot had been increased to Rs.1,200 per square yard for the plot of size of 500 sq. yards and he was required to deposit a total sum of Rs.60,000 towards earnest money. He was also told that since he had not earlier deposited the enhanced sum of the earnest money he was not considered in the draw of lots held on 28.1.1994. He was given another opportunity to deposit a sum of Rs. 60,000 as total earnest money by 29.7.1994. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 vide Bank Draft No. 268836/849/94 dated 28.6.1994 to make total of Rs. 60,000 (Rs. 10,000 having already deposited). He gave his option in the prescribed proforma for being considered for allotment of a plot of 500 sq. yards at the rate of Rs.1,200 per sq. yard. This was given on 28.6.1994. The same has been produced by the opposite parties as Annexure R -3 with their reply and is reproduced below :

''OPTION FORM To The Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab S.C.O. No. 1, Phase 1, SAS Nagar. Sub: Allotment of residential plot at SAS Nagar (Mohali) Registration No. 73. Reference your letter on the subject cited above. I had applied for the allotment of 500 sq. yds. plot in SAS Nagar Urban Estate and my application is registered at Regd. No. R -73. *(a) I agree to become eligible for preferential allotment in the new sectors of the Urban Estate, Mohali on the price to be fixed subsequently by the Punjab Housing Development Board. I am sending herewith a demand draft for Rs. 50,000 bearing No. 268836/849/94 dated 28.6.1994 (by way of earnest money) payable to the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab Housing Development Board, SAS Nagar and drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 7, Chandigarh (name of the bank). OR *(b) I do not agree to pay the additional earnest money. I further request that the earlier earnest money amounting to Rs. .................. deposited by me may be refunded to me. For this signed pre -stamped receipt for an amount of Rs. ...............is enclosed. Dated: 28.6.94 Signature : Sd/ - (Rajinder Singh Bhullar) (Name of the applicant) for and on behalf of (Address) Mr. Gurvinderjit Singh. 200/19 -A, Chandigarh. * Strike whichever of these is not applicable.''

IT is further alleged in the complaint that apart from the Option Form (supra) a letter dated 28th of June, 1994 was also addressed by the complainant to the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Mohali (prior to the establishment of PUDA it was Urban Estates, Punjab) in which it was mentioned that there is going to be change in address of the complainant and the changed address for correspondence was also mentioned in that said letter. The said letter is stated to have been received vide diary No. 4170 -B dated 28.6.1994. It is mentioned in this letter that the house address would be changed from House No. 200, Sector 19 -A. Chandigarh to E -101. Phase VII, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali -160055. It will be apposite to reproduce the letter dated 28.6.1994, which has been appended as Annexure C -2 with the complaint: Dated: 28th June, 1994. To The Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, S.C.O. I. Phase I, Mohali. Sub: Registration No. 73 Measuring 500 sq. yards pending for allotment at Mohali. Dear Sir,

I, Rajinder Singh Bhullar is the G.P.A. of Gurvinderjit Singh whose application R. No. 73 measuring 500 sq. yards is pending in your office for allotment. I hereby deposit the option form along with the requisite amount of Rs. 50,000 through Bank Draft No. 268836/849/94, dated 28.6.1994 issued by Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 7, Chandigarh against above said Registration No. I am going to change my address from H.No. 200, Sector 19A, Chandigarh To Gurvinderjit Singh s/o Raghbir Singh C/o Rajinder Singh Bhullar s/o Kabal Singh E -101, Phase 7, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali -160055. Your office is requested to change correspondence address for the above cited subject as given above. Yours faithfully. Sd/ - 28.6.1994/4170B (Rajinder Singh Bhullar)

As per further facts mentioned in the complaint, the complainant wrote another letter dated July 12, 1995 informing the Estate Officer of the opposite parties that his address has further been changed from E -101, Phase VII, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali -160055 to HIG -849, Phase -2, Mohali, District Ropar. This letter was diarised in the opposite parties record at Serial No. 9896 dated 12.7.1995. The letter has been appended as Annexure C -3 with the complaint. The receipt of this letter by the opposite parties has not been denied in the written statement and is rather admitted. The complainant did not hear anything about the status of his application. It is stated in the complaint that after waiting for couple of years he just visited the office of the Estate Officer of PUDA in May, 2000 and Inquired about the fate of his application. He was surprised to learn that a plot bearing No. 3539 in Sector 69, Mohali had been earmarked to him in the draw of lots held on August 1, 1995. On the asking of the officials of the Estate Office the complainant gave the requisite affidavit and photocopy of the passport on 23.6.2000. This letter was diarised with the office of the Estate Officer. PUDA, Mohali vide diary No. 9852. The same has been appended as Annexure C -4 with the complaint and is reproduced below: ''To The Estate Officer, PUDA. Mohali. Reg : Issuance of allotment letter -R.No. 73/500 sq. yard against Plot No. 3539. Sector 69, Mohali, Distt. Ropar. Sir,

That I am Mukhtiaram of Shri Gurvinderjit Singh son of late Shri Raghbir Singh, r/o Tarnevj, 243, 42610, Rodovre DK. That copy of the power of attorney (Muhtiaram) is attached. The affidavit of the original allottee and photocopy of the passport are also attached. You are requested to issue the allotment letter of Plot No. 3539, Sector 69, Mohali, District Ropar so that 1 could deposit the required amount. Thanking you. Yours sincerely. Dated: 9852/23.6.2000 Sd/ - Rajinder Singh Bhullar. S/o Sh. Kabool Singh. R/o House No. HIG -849. Phase 2, Mohali, Distt. Ropar.''

IN response to letter dated 23.6.2000, the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali wrote a letter to the complainant on 4.8.2000, translated copy has been appended as Annexure C -5 with the complaint. In this letter affidavit along with photo duly attested by Magistrate and original GPA were asked for. The said letter is reproduced below: ''PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI. To Shri Gurinderjit Singh, C/o Sh. Rajinder Singh Bhullar, House No. H.I.G., 849, Phase -2, Mohali. Memo No. PUDA A -11/2000/18628 Dated: 4.8.2000. Sub: Regarding allotment of Plot No. 3539, Sector 69, against R.No. 73/500 sq. yards. Reg: Your letter dated 23.6.2000. With reference to the above cited subject, you were earmarked Plot No. 3539. Sector 69, Mohali vide draw of lots held on 1.8.1995. 2. With reference to your letter referred to above, you are requested to supply the below mentioned documents before the issuance of allotment number. 1. Affidavit along with photo duly attested by the Magistrate. 2. Original G.P.A. . Sd/ - Asstt. Estate Officer. PUDA, Mohali.''

The requirements of the letter Annexure C -5 (supra) dated 4.8.2000 were duly complied with by the complainant.

A formal letter of allotment of the residential plot site No. 3539 measuring 500 sq. yards, which was earmarked in favour of the complainant in the draw of lots held on 1.8.1995 was issued by the opposite parties on 28.11.2000 Annexure C -6 with the complaint. It was mentioned in this letter that the tentative price of the plot is Rs. 3,600 per sq. yard i.e. Rs. 18,00,000 for the 500 sq. yards plot. If the complainant prepared to accept this offer at the rate mentioned above he should send his acceptance by registered post along with an amount of Rs. 4,00,000 within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. This amount was asked for to make 25% of the price of the plot as earnest money. It was also mentioned that the balance amount was payable in six yearly equated instalments. It is the case of the complainant that all applicants who were successful in the draw of lots held on 1.8.1995 had been charged the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 1,400 per sq. yard. This was because in July 1994 the price of the plot had been increased from Rs. 1,200 per sq. yard to Rs.1,400 per sq. yard. However, according to the opposite parties, since the allotment letter was being issued on November 28, 2000 and the price having been increased from Rs. 1,400 per sq. yard to Rs. 3,600 per sq. yard in June 1997 the complainant was being charged at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per sq. yard. The case of the opposite parties is that the complainant had been asked to complete the formalities earlier on 10.6.1996 and since he had not done so by June 1997 he had been asked to pay the price of the plot at the increased rate. The complainant protested against the letter of allotment dated 28.11.2000 by filing a representation dated 4 December, 2000 Annexure C -7 with the complaint and stated that since for the first time he was receiving the information regarding the allotment of the plot vide letter dated 28.11.2000 the question of charging the price prevalent at that time could not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as in fact he had been allotted a plot when the draw of lots was drawn on 1.8.1995 and the formal letter or information was not given to him to that effect and therefore, he could not complete the formalities. He could be charged the price, which was prevalent on 1.8.1995. In the representation dated 4.12.2000 he cited a judgment of this Commission dated 26.6.2000 in Original Complaint No. 47 of 1999, Harinder Pal Singh Cheema v. State of Punjab & Others, I (2001) CPJ 112. The representation Annexure C -7 dated 4.12.2000 was followed by reminder dated 27th December 2000. A copy of the same is appended as Annexure C -8 with the complaint. The reply was sent by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali on 18.1.2001 that the complainant had to pay the price of the plot, which was prevalent at the time of the issuance of the allotment letter. A copy of the same has been appended as Annexure C -9 with the complaint. This led the complainant to file the present complaint before this Commission. On notice having been issued to the opposite parties a reply had been filed. The receipt of the letter regarding the change of address Annexure C -2 dated 28.6.1994 had been denied by the opposite parties. However, when this Commission had earlier requisitioned record from the opposite parties the said letter was found in the records of the opposite parties. It was further submitted in the reply that a letter had been addressed to the complainant dated 10.6.1996 (Annexure R -4 with the reply) that he had to complete certain formalities for issuing allotment letter regarding plot No. 3539 in Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali. This letter was addressed to the complainant at E -101, Phase VII, Industrial Area, Mohali. It was also stated in the reply that another letter dated 2.2.1999 (Annexure R -5 with the reply) was also addressed to the complainant in which it was mentioned that a letter had already been written to him on 10.6.1996 regarding completion of certain formalities but since even by the time this letter was written nothing had been done by the complainant, the formalities be completed immediately. This letter was also addressed at E -101, Phase VII, Industrial Area, Mohali. Since, according to the opposite parties, the complainant did not comply with the formalities to enable the opposite parties to issue the allotment letter and the formalities had been completed only in the year 2000 and the allotment letter was issued in November 2000, therefore, the price, which is chargeable from the complainant is the price, which was prevalent at the time of issuance of the allotment letter and not when his name was drawn in the draw of lots held on 1.8.1995 where he was successful for allotment of a particular plot. Reliance was placed on behalf of the opposite parties on a judgment of the Apex Court in DDA v. Kamal Kumar, 1996 SCC 196 that it is the price, which is prevalent at the time of allotment, which is chargeable from the allottee and that the price is to be charged when an applicant becomes entitled to allotment. We are of the view that if a person is successful in draw of lots, he becomes entitled to allotment. The authorities are required to inform immediately regarding the allotment. Supposing they take their own time in informing regarding allotment, say two years, then can it be said that the price would be what is two years after the applicant became successful in the draw of lots? The answer has to be in negative. In this case, as will be seen, the complainant was never informed regarding the allotment of plot prior to November 2000.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments. The whole thing revolves around the fact whether the complainant was duly informed by the opposite parties regarding his being successful in the draw of lots on 1.8.1995 and a plot having been earmarked for him and further that he ''should complete certain formalities for issuance of the formal allotment letter. The letter to this effect, which is stated to have been issued by the opposite parties, has been appended as Annexure R -4 with the reply, which is dated 10.6.1996. The address of the complainant on this letter has been mentioned as E -101, Phase VII, Industrial Area, Mohali. Learned Counsel for the complainant had argued that the complainant vide letter dated 12.7.1995 (Annexure C -3) reproduced above, had informed the opposite parties that his address for correspondence from then onwards would be HIG -849, Phase II, Mohali, District Ropar. In the written statement the receipt of this letter has not been denied. Rather this letter from the complainant has been diarised in the office of the opposite parties at Serial No. 9896 dated 12.7.1995. Despite that information the letter dated 10.6.1996 (Annexure R -4) from the opposite parties informing the complainant about the allotment of a plot and for completing certain formalities had been addressed at E -101, Phase VII, Industrial Area. Mohali. Similarly, the letter dated 2.2.1999 (Annexure R -5) from the opposite parties to the complainant on the same subject had again been addressed at E -101, Phase VII, Industrial Area, Mohali. In fact by the time Annexure R -4 had been written on 10.6.1996 the complainant had almost one year earlier on 12.7.1995 informed the opposite parties regarding the change of address vide Annexure C -3. Surely the complainant cannot be said to have been informed about the allotment of a plot vide letter dated 10.6.1996 or 2.2.1999 Annexure R -4 and Annexure R -5 as these were sent at a wrong address. Apart from the fact that the receipt of the letter regarding the change of address from the complainant dated 12.7.1995 is admitted, the allotment letter dated 28.11.2000 Annexure C -6 was issued to the complainant at his changed address, which he had given in his letter dated 12.7.1995. The changed address was HIG -849, Phase II, Mohali, District Ropar. Its not understood if the allotment letter dated 28.11.2000 could be issued at the correct address why the earlier information regarding his having been successful in the draw of lots, which had been sent vide Annexure R -4 dated 10.6.1996 could not be sent at the correct address? The opposite parties were, according to us, deficient in service in not providing information to the complainant regarding his being successful in the draw of lots and further that he should complete certain formalities.

IN the aforesaid premises, the receipt of the earlier letter regarding first change of address Annexure C -2 dated 28.6.1994 becomes otiose as nothing really is based on that change in address. However, it may be stated as a fact that though in the written statement it had been denied that any such letter as Annexure C -2. reproduced above, had been ever received by the opposite parties but when the record was summoned it was found that the said letter was on the record of the opposite parties. Apart from that letter dated 10.6.1996 Annexure R -4 was sent to the complainant at the changed address, which had been mentioned by him in his letter dated 28.6.1994 Annexure C -2. If this letter was not on the record then how come that on 10.6.1996 the opposite parties themselves addressed a letter to the complainant at E -101, Phase VII, Industrial Area, Mohali, which was the changed address mentioned in the letter dated 28.6.1994 Annexure C -2. Its a different matter that in fact by 10.6.1996 the complainant had already informed the opposite parties vide letter dated 12.7.1995 Annexure C -3 regarding his further change in address. It has already been pointed out earlier that letter dated 10.6.1996 Annexure R -4 was not sent as per the address given by the complainant in his letter dated 12.7.1995 Annexure C -3. the receipt of which has not been denied by the opposite parties. In fact this letter was diarised in the office of the opposite parties vide diary No. 9896 and the allotment letter dated 28.11.2000 Annexure C -6 was also sent by the opposite parties as per the address given in the letter dated 12.7.1995 Annexure C -3. In the aforesaid matrix of facts, the question arises: If there is delay on the part of the opposite parties to issue the allotment letter to the complainant and there is no fault of the complainant then what price should be charged from the complainant? Should the price be what was prevalent on 28.11.2000 when the allotment letter was issued or in the facts and circumstances of this case the price should be what was prevalent on 1.8.1995 when the complainant was successful in draw of lots and a plot had been earmarked for him? We are of the view that, on facts and circumstances of this case, the price that is chargeable is the price, which was prevalent when the draw of lots took place on 1.8.1995. It should be the same price as has been charged from those persons, who were successful in the draw of lots held on 1.8.1995. Consequeently, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the allotment and delivery of Plot No. 3539, Sector 69, Mohali at the rate of Rs. 1,400 per sq. yard, which was the price prevalent on 1.8.1995 and has been charged from the other successful applicants in the draw of lots held on 1.8.1995. This view which we are taking is supported by an earlier judgment of this Commission in Original Complaint No. 47 of 1999 decided on 26.6.2000 ''Harinder Pal Singh Cheema v. State of Punjab and Others.''

THE complainant has also claimed in his complaint compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 covering the enhanced construction price due to escalation and Rs. 1,00,000 towards the mental agony and harassment as also Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses.

THIS complaint was filed in the year 2001. For some reason, this complaint could not be decided earlier because of paucity of additional Benches and pendency of other cases. A judicial notice can be taken that there is an escalation in the price of construction but on the other hand, we cannot lose sight of the fact that by our order the complainant will be allotted a plot the market price of which is much higher than what it was in 1995 and by our order the complainant would be getting the plot at the same price what it was in August 1995. In Harinder Pal Singh Cheemas case (supra), which was decided in the year 2000 Rs. 1,00,000 had been awarded as compensation, which included the escalation in the price of construction, harassment and inconvenience and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. We are of the view that interest of justice would be met if we pass a similar order in this case also. Consequently, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to allot plot No. 3539 in Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali and deliver possession thereof by charging the price of Rs.1,400 per sq. yard, which was prevalent at the time when the draw of lots was held on 1.8.1995 and further pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as composite compensation, which will include the escalation in price, harassment and inconvenience. The opposite parties would further pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties within two months of the receipt of a copy of this order. Orders were reserved on 13.9.2005. Be communicated to the parties. Complaint allowed.