HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs ANITA AGGARWAL

A residential plot bearing No. 318, Sector 15, Jagadhri was allotted by HUDA to Mrs. Anita Aggarwal, the complainant vide letter No. 22117 dated 23.8.1991. The total price deposited by means of regular instalments was Rs. 1,20,175/-. In reality the aforesaid plot did not exist. The District Forum-I ordered on 5.3.1999 that Haryana Urban Development Authority was not competent to forfeit Rs. 21,639/- and to refund only a sum of Rs. 98,536/-. It ordered that the sum of Rs. 21,639/- is also to be refunded together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the entire sum of Rs. 1,20,175/- from the respective dates of deposit till realisation and a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- as well. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

IT shall be useful to reproduce paras 9 and 10 of the reply filed by HUDA in the District Forum, which are as under : "9. That para No. 9 of complaint is wrong and hence denied. IT is submitted that after the demarcation, there was no land available for plot No. 318 in Sector 15 HUDA Jagadhri and as such the plot No. 318 was deleted and a letter regarding the taking back the possession was written to complainant. 10. That para No. 10 of the complaint is wrong and hence denied. After the due demarcation plot No. 318 was deleted and demarcation was actually conducted according to which there was'' no land available for plot No. 318 and that is the reason why plot No. 318 was deleted."

A perusal of aforesaid para Nos. 9 and 10 of the reply filed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority in the Forum established that in reality Plot No. 318 did not exist and the appellant was obviously unable to deliver possession of the aforesaid plot. Thus the entire proceedings of collecting instalments from the allottee etc. were in fact a repetition of deficiency on the part of HUDA, the appellant. The respondent was clearly entitled to a total refund. The deduction of Rs. 21,639/- in such a case was wholly unjustified.

On behalf of the appellant an attempt has been made to put forward a plea that subsequently plot No. 252A was allotted to the respondent in the alternative. It appears that the draw in respect of this plot was held on 23.5.1997 i.e. long after the refund of the price already made on 11.3.1996 in respect of the original plot. Even regarding Plot No. 252-A Haryana Urban Development Authority has not placed any letter on record that it was ever actually offered to the complainant-Mrs. Anita Aggarwal. Thus this plea of alternative allotment had no merit and it did not debar the complainant to claim the total refund together with interest. Since there is a notification dated 13.1.1977 of Haryana Government establishing the office of Haryana Urban Development Authority at Mani Majra, which is situated in the Union Territory, Chandigarh, the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Chandigarh and this Commission remains well established.

AT the end the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the rate of interest should not have been 18% p.a. and it should have been @ 10%. This plea has no merit in the facts and circumstances of the case now in hand. It has been pointed out that Haryana Urban Development Authority is charging 15% interest which too is compounded quarterly from a defaulter. Besides this, in this case the price was collected from the complainant in respect of a plot which did not exist at all. Thus there is no justification for awarding lower rate of interest. The conclusion is that appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.