HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs ANUJ MITTAL

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 7.4.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party to pay interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.5.1997 i.e., after the expiry of period of two years from the date of allotment of the plot to the complainant till 15.4.2004 when possession of the allotted plot was offered to the complainant.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that plot No. 1555 located in Sector-12, Sonepat was allotted to the complainant as per allotment letter No. 5569 dated 1.5.1995. The complainant has paid the entire price of Rs. 1,90,073 to the opposite parties towards the plot but the possession of the plot has not been offered to the complainant till 15.4.2004. Thereafter, the possession of the plot was given to the complainant on 5.5.2004 and that too without completion of the development work. The complainant called upon the opposite party to pay interest on account of non-delivery of possession of the plot but no action was taken in this regard. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant filed the present appeal. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed it was not disputed that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant on 1.5.1995 and the offer of possession of the said plot was made to him on 15.4.2004 and, thereafter, the complainant took possession of the plot on 5.5.2004. It was further stated that the plot in question had been developed and all basic amenities have been provided to the complainant and as there was no deficiency in service on its part, the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum rejected the stand of the opposite party and issued the directions to the opposite party in its order dated 7.4.2006 noticed above. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.

Learned Counsel representing the appellant has been heard at length.

THE challenge to the order dated 7.4.2006 of the District Forum has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellant primarily on the ground that in terms of Clause 7 of the allotment letter bearing Memo No. 5569 dated 1.5.1995 the possession of the site was to be offered on completion of the development works in the area. In case of allotment of building or undeveloped land, the possession was to be delivered within 90 days from the date of the order. On the basis of this clause it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no period whatsoever has been fixed for making offer of possession of the plot and the District Forum has committed illegality in ignoring specific terms of the allotment letter while passing the impugned order. THEre is hardly any merit in the submission made. Even where no specific period is mentioned in the allotment letter, the possession of the plot has to be offered to the allottee within a reasonable period. A period of two years from the date of allotment for making offer of possession of the plot has to be taken as reasonable period. In this case admittedly, the allotment was made to the complainant on 1.5.1995 while offer of possession of the plot was made to him on 15.4.2004, so to say almost after a lapse of nine years. THE delay in making the offer of possession of the plot could not be explained from the side of the appellant on any justified ground. Under the circumstances of the case, the District Forum cannot be faulted in issuing the directions noticed earlier. THEre being no jurisdictional error on the part of the District Forum in passing the impugned order, the same has to be sustained. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.