Haryana Urban Development And Anr. vs Mangat Ram, Sub -Divisional Officer

THE respondent was allotted a residential plot by petitioner authority and in terms of stimulations made in Clause 7 of the letter of allotment, the possession of plot was to be delivered after completion of development work, as an interest @ 15% per annum was to be levied by the petitioners on balance amount from the date of offer of possession. The allottees were required to complete construction within two years from the date of offer of possession and in case of failure, the extension fee is to be charged in accordance with Clause 1 of the letter of allotment, the possession of plot was allotted to the respondent sometimes in March, 1992. The respondent alleges that notwithstanding basic infrastructure wanting and possession having been delivered in contravention of Clause 7 of the allotment letter, construction commenced as early as on 29.6.1993 over the site. After completion of construction up to plinth level in July, 1994 respondent sought issuance of D.P.C. check certificate, under the rules to raise further construction. Despite frequent visit to the office of the petitioner, there had been considerable delay in issuance of D.P.C. certificate, which was eventually issued on 19.6.1996 against requirement of issuance of said certificate within seven days. Likewise the petitioner authority, it was alleged, took 14 months in issuance of completion certificate and raised extension fee. Controverting the attributions made, HUDA would hold that as there had been violation in construction as per the sanctioned plan, respondent was asked to pay compounding fee and it is for that reason that there was some delay in issuance of completion certificate.

BOTH Fora below on appraisal of the issue had recorded a concurrent finding that even though construction up to plinth level was completed in July, 1994 petitioner authority issued D.P.C. check certificate not before 19.6.1996. Even when respondent had removed violation and ready to pay the compounding fee, petitioner authority took considerable time in issuance of completion certificate and conversely they were made answerable for payment of extension fee. Hence, the demand raised by the petitioner against extension fee, in backdrop of these events, did not find favour with the District Forum, which accepting complaint, awarded compensation and interest. The State Commission rightly in view of award of compensation deleted interest part from the award. No fault can be found with the finding impugned before us. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed but without order as to costs.