HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs DEEP KISHORE SINGH

THIS is a revision petition against the order of 5th July, 1993 in First Appeal No. 219 of 1993 passed by the State Commission of Haryana. By that order the State Commission had upheld the order of the District Forum of 4th of May, 1993 whereby it had held that demand notice for Rs. 19,060 on account of the enhancement of the cost of the residential plot in the Urban Estate, Faridabad by the revision petitioner HUDA was bad in law and was therefore, quashed. For the harassment the respondent-complainant had to undergo, the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000 and costs of Rs. 500. The State Commission also awarded in appeal to the respondent-complainant costs of Rs. 500 only.

THE relevant facts briefly are that a plot of land in Sector 7 Faridabad was allotted to one Shri Trilochan Singh in 1965. THE same plot was transferred to the respondent Shri Deep Kishore Singh in 1976. THE deed of conveyance executed by the original allottee stipulated that the tentative price fixed by the vendor was Rs. 9,974 and that the vendor reserved the right to enhance the said tentative price in accordance with the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965. At the time of transfer of plot in 1976 the respondent-complainant had executed an affidavit in June, 1976 stating that in respect of the said plot he "shall abide by all terms and conditions relating to allotment" and also "abide by any additional conditions which may be imposed by the Chief Administrator while transferring the said plot". Further in the said affidavit he had stated that he undertook "to make payment of such amount as may become due at any later stage"

In April, 1977 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana enhanced the price of the land acquired for Sector 7 Faridabad by Rs. 4 per sq. yard along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% interest. In pursuance of this order of the High Court the revision petitioner HUDA issued demand notices in 1982 for the additional amount decided by the plot owners including to the respondent-complainant here. The revision petitioner has pointed out that this notice was taken personally by the respondent who was himself then the Estate Officer in Faridabad between 1982 and 1984. A show cause notice was issued to him in June, 1984 for nonpayment of the enhanced amount claimed, a second show cause notice was issued in November, 1991. No payment, however, was made by the respondent complainant. He did not file any statutory appeal as provided under Section 17(5) of the HUDA Act, 1977 either in 1984 or in 1991. Eventually in January, 1992 he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

THE State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum on the ground that "no dues certificate" regarding the plot had been issued by the Revision petitioner/opposite party and that the sale price of plot was fixed in terms of the original order of 1965 and that the provisions of the Haryana Act made 12 years thereafter i.e. in 1977 could not be retrospectively stretched back to the prejudice of the respondent, that the allotment order categorically mentioned the price as final without any escalation clause and the issue of "no due certificate" clinched the matter in favour of the respondent-complainant." From the narration of facts given above the position that emerges in as under : (1)THE price fixed in 1965 at the time of sale of plot to the original allottee was tentative and the vendor had the right to enhance the same in accordance with the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965.

(2)THEre was an unambiguous commitment by the respondent-complainant as a transferee of the plot in 1976 that he was bound by all the terms and conditions relating to the allotment and that he would pay such amounts as may become due at any later stage.

(3)THE price of the plot was increased as a result of the orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in 1977 and as such the extra amount payable was clearly the liability of the purchaser of the plot viz. the respondent complainant.

(4) It is significant that a demand notice for the additional amount is said to have been issued to him in June, 1982 when he himself was the Estate Officer, Faridabad. It is inconceivable that he was not aware of the said enhancement in price but he did not take any action to file any appeal against such enhancement as he was entitled to under the HUDA Act of 1977.

(5)This is not a case of retrospective enhancement of the price of the plot. It was known from the very beginning that the price originally charged viz. Rs. 9,974 was tentative and was liable to be enhanced. THErefore, this is not a case of retrospective application of the HUDA Act of 1977 to the detriment of the respondent complainant. By the application of that Act, the purchasers of the plots were given the right of appeal againstany additional payment for the plots.

(6)Under the Consumer Protection Act, pricing is not a matter which can be the subject-matter of dispute before the Consumer Forums except where the price has been fixed by law. THE price charged for a plot is a consideration for the sale or transfer of the plot and therefore, the complaint could not have been entertained by the Consumer Forums.

(7)We also notice from the facts of the case that the revision petitioner HUDA was justified in asking the respondent-complainant to pay the additional amount due as per the order of the High Court and if was the obligation of the respondent-complainant to pay the same. In fact he has not even suggested that the additional demand has been made only on him and not against other allottees of the plots in Sector 7 similarly placed.

(8)We, therefore, hold that there has been no deficiency in service and there has been erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Consumer Forums resulting in material irregularity and erroneous findings by the District Forum and the State Commission. THE revision petition is allowed and the orders of the State Commission and District Forum are set aside. THEre is no order as to costs.

Revision Petition allowed.