HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs PAWAN KUMAR

HARYANA Urban Development Authority (HUDA) who was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed the present revision petition. Complainant/respondent was allotted a plot in Sector-1, Narnaul by the petitioner on 27th November, 2000. Alongwith the application for allotment of plot, the respondent had deposited Rs.19,182/- being 10% of the tentative price. Respondent thereafter deposited Rs.33,569/- i.e. 15% of the tentative price on 8th September, 2001. Balance of the consideration was to be deposited in 6 annual instalments with interest @ 15% which respondent deposited in time. The price of the plot was enhanced by Rs.72,113/-. Respondent deposited the enhanced price. Despite paying all the instalmetns and enhanced price, possession was not given to the respondent by the petitioner. Respondent served legal notice, which was not replied to.

BEING aggrieved respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the petitioner to give physical possession of the plot; compensation of Rs.1 Lakh; interest @ 12% on the deposited amount from the date of payment till the date of possession. During the pendency of the complaint, petitioner delivered the possession of the plot to the respondent on 3.2.2011. Respondent was allotted a plot measuring 144.50 sq. mtr. only. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the proportionate excess amount received from the respondent alongwith interest @ 15% from the date of deposit till realization. Rs.1 Lakh were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,500/- as cost. Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 215 days.

STATE Commission dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner failed to furnish satisfactory explanation for the delay of 215 days in filing the appeal. Even on merits, we do not find much substance in this revision petition. Respondent was allotted the plot on 27th November, 2000. He was not given the possession simply on the ground that he did not visit the office of the HUDA to take the possession. Such a plea speaks volume about the working of the petitioner. The possession of the plot was not given to the respondent for about 10 years only on the ground that the respondent did not visit the office of the petitioner. Petitioner had not written any letter to the respondent to come and take possession. Even after issuing the legal notice, the petitioner did not offer the possession of the plot. Possession of the plot was given to him only after initiating of the complaint. Respondent has been unduly harassed for no fault of his. Instead of giving the plot of 162 sq. mtr. which was allotted, the respondent was given possession of only 144.50 sq. mtr. The foras below have rightly directed the petitioner to refund the excess amount received by it alongwith interest @ 15%. Compensation of Rs.1 Lakh in the given circumstances is just and appropriate. No interference is called for Dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.