HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Pawan Kumar Gupta

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement floated by the petitioner in Sector 23, Sonepat, Haryana, the respondent/complainant applied for a plot of 420 sq. mts. and deposited the earnest money. On 26.7.1991, the complainant was issued an allotment letter wherein tentative price was mentioned as Rs. 3,54,460. The complainant was directed to pay Rs. 53,169 and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,65,860 was to be paid in 6 instalments. In the allotment letter it was stated by the complainant that the possession of the plot was to be handed over within 90 days from the date of issuing the allotment letter. Thereafter the complainant deposited instalments from time to time but possession was not given. It was only on 8.8.1997, the complainant was directed to deposit further sum of Rs. 51,789.20 ps. When the complainant approached the office at Sonepat, he was offered a ''paper possession'' only which was not acceptable to the complainant as the site was not developed. When the possession was not being offered of a developed plot a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties and perusal of the material on record allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to allot the plot and deliver physical possession within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order of the District Forum dated 2.11.1994 and also pay the interest @12% from three years after the date of allotment till physical possession is given along with cost of Rs. 1,100. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs. 500. Hence this revision petition before us. Notice was issued to the respondent/complainant on 27. 12.2005, yet no one is present on behalf of the respondent on the date fixed hence proceeded exparte.

We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. In the grounds for revision the plea taken is that the possession was offered on 2.3.1999, hence they are not liable to pay any interest on account of offer of possession. It is also stated that the complaint was barred by limitation. It is also stated that Clause 7 of the allotment letter envisaged that the possession of the flat was to be offered on completion of development of area as also, that the respondent has been a constant defaulter in making the payment of the instalment.

AS far as the offer of possession is concerned, two things needs to be stated - one that there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the lower Fora, that what was proposed to be offered was a paper possession and in fact the possession was never given. Secondly, the above fact would be substantiated by the grounds of revision No.4 taken in the revision petition that under Clause 7 of the allotment letter the possession of plot was to be offered on development of area. There is no disputing the fact that all the payments except for the last instalment was made from time to time starting with 1991 and other instalments, as per schedule, with some delays here and there, in 1992 and 1994. One does not expect from a public authority like HUDA to make a person wait for almost 8 long years for completing the development of the area. The fact that they took 8 long years to develop the area belies the contention of the petitioner that there was no delay in offering the possession. If in these circumstances, both the lower Fora have held that the complaint was within time limit, as there was a continuous cause of action for the complainant, we cannot have any different view on this point than the one taken by the District Forum and State Commission. It was again argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had paid only 5 instalments. It is also admitted that 5 out of 6 instalments have been paid. An individual, unlike the public authority, who deposits money from own savings expect delivery of possession of plot. The failure on the part of the petitioner to deliver the possession within a reasonable time is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner which they cannot escape. If in these circumstances, relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161, Fora below have granted interest @ 12% p.a., after providing for 3 years time to the petitioner which should have been enough for the petitioner to complete the development work, we cannot find any fault with the reliefs granted by them, which is as per law. In these circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission.

THIS revision petition is devoid of merit, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed