HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Pawan Kumar Gupta

IN this appeal filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter to be referred as HUDA), the appellants HUDA have impugned the judgment and order dated 2.11.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 466 of 2001, precisely on two grounds.

IN the first place, it has been submitted by Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate that the District Forum went wrong in entertaining a complaint, which was badly barred by limitation and in the second place, the District Forum committed an error in not accepting the verison of the appellants that an offer for delivery of possession had been made much earlier to the respondent/complainant. The respondent/complainant was served with the notice of appeal and Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate appeared for and on behalf of the respondent/complainant. The record of the complaint case was also called for and received.

So far as the first point taken up in this appeal is concerned, it is regarding the complaint having been barred by limitation on the ground that the possession was offered vide letter No. 1887 dated 22.3.1999 on which date the cause of action had arisen to the complainant whereas the complaint was dated 11.8.2001, which came up for hearing for admission before the District Forum on 6.9.2001. The complaint was thus filed after the expiry of period of two years w.e.f. the date on which according to the complainant the cause of action had arisen i.e., 22.3.1999.

THE learned Counsel Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate appearing for the respondent/complainant contended that after receiving the notice offering possession, the complainant visited the office of the appellants HUDA after undertaking journey from his place of residence i.e., Jalandhar and he was quite surprised when he was asked to sign some papers. When he enquired about the physical possession of the plot, the officers of HUDA informed the complainant that the site had not been developed and plot has not been earmarked for the concerned allotment. It was after this information that the complainant declined to sign any paper and informed HUDA unless the delivery of the plot was delivered to him as required by Clause 7 of the allotment letter, he will not take paper possession nor he will pay any further instalment as the possession of the plot was to be delivered within 90 days from the date of issue of allotment letter i.e., on or before 25.10.1999. It was under these circumstances that the complaint was filed. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate contended that the cause of action was a continuing and recurring on till the physical possession of the plot allotted to the complainant had been actually delivered and as such, the plea of bar of limitation will not arise in the instant case. After going through the impugned judgment and record, we find considerable merit in the said contention. There is nothing on record to show that actual physical possession had been delivered by the appellants to the respondent/complainant and the cause of action was continuing and recurring. In our considered opinion, there is no merit in the first submission raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. It is held that the complaint was not barred by limitation.

SO far as the second and the last submission is concerned, the respondent/complainant waited for delivery of actual physical possession of the plot allotted to him way back on 26.7.1991. The tentative price of the plot was mentioned in the letter of allotment as Rs. 3,54,480. The appellants kept quite for a period of more than 8 years and it was in the year 1999 (22.3.1999) that the complainant was informed to take possession of the plot allotted to the complainant and even on that date, no physical possession was handed over to the complainant who had travelled all the way from Jalandhar to SOnepat, which is situated at a distance of about 500 Kilometres. It was pointed out that the site of the plot was undeveloped and there were encroachments made on the said land. The District Forum after analyzing the evidence on record led by the appellants referred to the fact that HUDA did not adduce any evidence that the possession was offered to the complainant earlier to 22.3.1999 and it was held that HUDA had failed to offer possession to the complainant even after lapse of more than 8 years from the allotment, which was made in the year 1991. In view of this finding, the District Forum issued a direction to HUDA to deliver physical possession of the plot allotted to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. The District Forum referred to the authority of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161 and directed HUDA to pay to the complainant interest @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited by him commencing from three years hence from the date of allotment till the physical possession is given. The complainant was also awarded costs of Rs. 1,100. The prayer of the complainant for compensation on account of escalation in the costs of construction was dismissed. The complainant has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment and order. The District Forum has, in our considered opinion, rightly held deficiency on the part of the appellants/O.Ps. and no interference is called for in this appeal, which is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 500.

COPIES of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.