H U D A vs Promila Rani

-THIS Revision Petition arises out of the order of State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, HUDA.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent on reallotment took the possession of shop-cum-flat No. 28 in Sector 13 measuring 137. 5 sq. mtrs. in Karnal on 9. 3. 1999. It appears that the originl price of Rs. 1,47,000 was paid but the problem started when the petitioner demanded a further sum of Rs. 62,780. 80 as the cost of increased area. Original cost paid for, was for area measuring 121 sq. mtrs. The additional demand compromised of two components, cost of additional area and interest from 1981 (Rs. 20,045. 45 + Rs. 4,27,351. 35 ). The complainant paid Rs. 21,000 towards the cost of plot but did not pay the interest on the ground that interest as per terms of allotment could not be charged from the date of possession. He has already paid Rs. 954. 55 (Rs. 21,000 - Rs. 20,045) for which the complainant moved the District Forum seeking refund of excess amount already paid and requesting for a direction to be issued to the petitioner not to charge the amount of interest being demanded. The District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed refund of Rs. 954. 55 with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit, not to charge the interest before the date of issue of notice i. e. , 21. 12. 1998 and cost of Rs. 500. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine, hence the revision petition.

It is the case of the petitioner that HUDA has asked for interest from the complainant/allottee as per HUDA policy. Interest has rightly been calculated from 30. 3. 1981 i. e. from the date of its original allotment - after sale in open auction. Even though we find no explanation in the order of both the lower Fora as to what was the status of this plot between March 1981 and 9. 3. 1999 when the new allottee took possession. We also have no explanation on record as to under what circumstances the eventuality of re-allotment arose. Be that as it may, it is clear that though the area of plot - originally allotted was 121 sq. mtrs. and such some people had made verandahs, etc. by encroaching on the land resulting in a new plan being made for the areas as a result of which area in the plot in question increased to 137. 5 sq. ft. We find nothing on record to substantiate that anyone enjoyed the facility of a larger plot. We have also not on record any detail as to when the new plan came into force. It was for the petitioner, HUDA to bring all the material on record. It is admitted position that notice on enhanced area was issued on 21. 12. 1998 and possession was taken on 9. 3. 1999. Complainant had deposited the principal amount being the cost of area on this date, hence no interest is leviable/chargeable. Clause (5) of the allotment letter itself says that interest will be payable from the date of possession. This is what has been done.

WE see nothing wrong in the order passed by both the lower Forums to call for our interference. Revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. R. P. dismissed.