HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Indu Ahuja

THIS revision petition filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) is directed against the order dated 21st of December, 2009 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission). By the said order, the State Commission has dismissed petitioner/HUDAs appeal against the order dated 12th of February, 2004 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short the District Forum), thereby affirming the following directions issued by the District Forum to the petitioner/HUDA :- (i)Pay interest @ 10% per annum on the entire deposited amount including 25% amount after two years from the date of re-allotment of the plot i.e. from 5th of March, 1993 till March, 2003; (ii)Pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of escalation in the cost of material/construction; and (iii)Comply with the order within three months failing which pay future interest @ 10% per annum from March, 2003 till the date of payment.

BRIEF facts of the case are that one Ajay Kumar Batra had been originally allotted plot no. 2, situated in Sector-13, Hisar on the 4th of April, 1986. The present respondent Smt. Indu Ahuja purchased the plot from Shri Ajay Kumar Batra and the petitioner/HUDA agreed to re-allot the plot in favour of the respondent/complainant on 5th of March, 1991. While the petitioner/HUDA contend that the possession of the plot had been handed over on 20th of August, 1993, a complaint was filed by the respondent before the District Forum on the 13th of May, 2002, after a long gap of nine years alleging that an electric wire was passing through the plot in question and, therefore, she has not been able to construct any house thereon, for which apart from a direction to get the wire removed she also sought a number of other reliefs, including the compensation. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/HUDA. The District Forum, however, on consideration of the material and after giving a hearing to the parties allowed the complaint and awarded the reliefs as already stated above. Aggrieved thereupon, when an appeal was filed by the petitioner/HUDA before the State Commission, their appeal has been dismissed both on grounds of limitation as well as on merits. Aggrieved thereupon that this revision petition has been filed. Shri R.S. Badhran, learned counsel for the petitioner/HUDA, and Shri Gautam Godara, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant have been heard. Earlier vide our dated 21st of July, 2010 a notice limited to the award of compensation had been issued to the respondent/complainant. On this point, Shri Badhran relying upon the order passed by this Commission in the case of Satpal Jain Vs. HUDA & Anr. [Revision Petition No. 1094 of 2010 decided on 9th of April, 2010], in which this Commission has passed the order relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2381 of 2003, in which it has been held that re-allottee is not entitled to any interest, as the same was neither warranted nor justified, has contended that when not even interest is allowed, the question of any compensation does not arise. He has further submitted that in the present case, the State Commission as also the District Forum have failed to consider that the respondent/complainant was not only a re-allottee but had purchased the plot from the original allottee purely for investment purposes, as has been proved that she after the re-allotment had entered into a sale agreement with one Punam Manocha, who had filed a civil suit against the respondent/complainant and had obtained an order restraining her from alienating the property. Referring to the order of the District Forum, learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiff Punam Manocha in fact had received a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- from the respondent/complainant, after which she had withdrawn the suit. In this background, the learned counsel contends that the question of any interest or compensation should not have been awarded by the fora below.

Learned counsel for the respondent complainant has justified the orders of the fora below and has contended that the fact with regard to the existence of the electric wire over the plot stands fully established, which amounted to deficiency in service. This was the reason as to why the respondent/complainant could not construct the house and, therefore, the award for interest and compensation was fully justified.

HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records of the case, it cannot but be said that both the fora below have failed to consider that the respondent/complainant was a re-allottee. She had purchased the plot with her open eyes fully aware of the situation prevailing on the plot. HAVING taken possession of the plot in 1993 and if an electric wire was passing over the plot, she ought to have either represented before the concerned authorities of petitioner/HUDA to get the said electric wire removed or filed a complaint soon thereafter. There is no whisper with regard to any representation having been made by the complainant in the matter. The complaint having been filed during the year 2002 was clearly barred by limitation. Besides, as has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the purchase of the plot from the original allottee was not for her own use/meant for her residence. The fact that she entered into a sale agreement soon after this re-allotment with a third party, namely, Punam Manocha clearly proves that she had purchased the plot purely for the purpose of investment and for that reason she would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever. The decision of this Commission relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Satpal Jain (supra), which is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2381 of 2003, holding that re-allottee is not entitled to any interest, is aptly relevant to the facts of this case. To similar effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank [(2007) 6 SCC 711]. The respondent/complainant at the time of purchase of the plot, knowing-fully well that an electric wire was passing overhead, had purchased the same and thereafter made the complaint, seeking the relief, which has been erroneously allowed by the fora below. The question of any relief, under the circumstances, does not arise. The order passed by the fora below are accordingly set aside and the revision petition is allowed with no order as to costs.