HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs PARDEEP AHUJA

-IN this case the complainant was allotted a residential plot measuring 142 sq. mtrs. on 19. 5. 1986. Despite making full payment, the possession was not delivered to him. HUDA contended that as there was protracted litigation, the plot could not be handed over to him. Disgruntled by the attitude of the HUDA, the complainant approached the District Forum for relief. The District Forum, Gurgaon directed that an alternate plot either in the same sector or in the adjoining sector may be given to him along with 15% p. a. interest on the amount deposited by the complainant.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum , complainant had filed an appeal before the State Commission, Chandigarh which directed that price of the alternate plot to be charged from the complainant should be at the original rate which was prevailing at the time of the original allotment. Huda had not gone in appeal against the State Commission''s order. On the other hand, Huda issued notice to the complainant for payment of additional price @ Rs. 540. 90 per sq. yard.

Aggrieved by this, complaint was filed before the District Forum by the complainant. The District Forum directed that the price of the alternate plot be charged at the original rate at which original plot was allotted to the complainant as ordered by the State Commission and interest can only be charged from the complainant in case the amount was not paid within 30 days from raising of the demand.

DISSATISFIED by the order of the District Forum dated 4. 12. 2000, HUDA filed an appeal No. 236 of 2007 before the State Commission. On a query raised by us whether there was seven years delay in filing the appeal, learned Counsel for the HUDA stated that there was some delay but he could not say for sure what was the exact duration of delay. The State Commission after analysing the facts of this case and the lengthy litigation before the Fora below caused by HUDA passed an order on 24. 8. 2007 directing the appellant-HUDA to charge the price of the alternate plot at the same price at which original plot was allotted. Further, HUDA was directed to charge interest on the enhanced price after expiry of 30 days from raising the demand. This Commission in HUDA v. R. P. Chawla, (2001) CCC 538 (NS), has considered the following question : "when the possession of the plot originally allotted in a particular sector could not be given to the allottee for any reason for no fault of his and HUDA (Haryana Urban Development Authority) is required to allot an alternative plot in lieu thereof in any other sector, what price HUDA is to charge for the alternative plot allotted in the different sector?"

The Commission has held as follows: "there has been a great deal of delay in handing over possession of the plot. Cost of construction has arisen all these years. In the case of HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, 2001 CCC 455 (NS) we have held that award of rate of 18% interest per annum would take into account not only the loss of interest by allottee on the amount paid by him but also the rising cost of construction. As pointed out in Darsh Kumar case, Chawla is in catch 22 situation. He was promised plot of land at a particular price which he paid. The plot he applied for was for his residence. He could not apply for any other plot in HUDA. After nine years of wait, he could not be asked to pay price of the plot allotted to him in a different sector at a higher amount. The issue before us is the allotment of alternative plot. It is also to be seen that if for no fault of the allottee, he is deprived of his plot allotted to him and in lieu of that he is allotted some other plot in the same or any other sector he cannot be asked to pay the price over and above of original plot which he will have to pay. In this case allottee would be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum. The interest amount shall however be payable from the date of respective deposits of the amounts. "

THE ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to this case. Accordingly, we do not see any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R. P. dismissed.