HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Sadhu Ram

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 22.3.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant, the Memo No. 3876 dated 21.4.1999 in respect of the offer of possession of plot No. 1107 located in Sectors 13, 17, Panipat issued to the complainant has been held to be illegal and the appellant-opposite parties have been directed to issue fresh offer of possession of the plot in question to the complainant. The appellants have been further directed to refund the interest amount together with extension fee of Rs. 4,500 and Rs. 9,000 received from the complainant along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposits till realization.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that plot No. 1107 located in Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat was initially allotted to Mr. Chander Gupta Bansal vide Memo No. 6084 dated 20.9.1991. Said plot was purchased by the complainant and it was re-allotted to him vide Memo No. 2250 dated 20.3.1997. The offer of possession of the plot was given to the complainant vide Memo No. 3876 dated 21.4.1999. The complainant has also paid penalty amount of Rs. 4,500 in December, 2003 at the time of the approval of the site plan and Rs. 9,000 at the time of execution of conveyance deed in the year 2002 as extension fee. When the complainant wanted to raise construction over the plot in question, he applied to the opposite parties for demarcation of the plot. The Junior Engineer of the opposite parties visited the site to demarcate the plot who found HT line passing over the said plot and for that reason demarcation of the plot could not be given to the complainant. He was informed that till the HT line would be shifted, the demarcation of the plot could not be done. The complainant, then approached to the opposite parties by moving an application stating therein that the memo No. 3876 dated 21.4.1999 with regard to the possession of the plot in question be declared as null and void but no action was taken in this regard. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to treat the letter No. 3876 dated 21.4.1999 as null and void till the physical possession of the plot was handed over to him, to hand over the actual physical possession of the said plot No. 1107 in Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat after removing electric overhead line from the said plot and then to consider the date of actual handing over the physical possession of plot as actual date of possession of the plot and to refund all the penalties already received by the opposite parties from the complainant illegally, along with interest. He also claimed Rs. 50,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,500 as cost of the litigation. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that after completion of the development work, possession of the plot in question was offered to the complainant vide memo No. 3876 dated 21.4.1999. It was further stated that existence of HT line came to the notice fo the opposite parties when actual demarcation of the plot was being carried out and the same, thereafter, was removed on priority basis. They justified the charging of the penalty amount of Rs. 4,500 in December, 2003 as possessory interest and Rs. 9,000 in 2002 towards extension fee. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions to the opposite parties in its order noticed above. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.

Learned Counsel representing the appellants has been heard at length.

DURING the course of arguments learned Counsel for the appellants while assailing the order of the District Forum dated 22.3.2006 mainly contended before us that the District Forum has grossly erred in ignoring that there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the opposite parties and for that reason it should not have exercised its discretion to entertain the complaint and issuing the directions noticed above. There is hardly any merit in the submission made. It is clearly spelt out on record that when the complainant applied for demarcation of the plot in question, it was noticed that the plot was covered with overhead high tension electric line. In support of the stand taken no evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties before the District Forum in order to establish on which date the over head lines was removed. The District Forum in para No. 6 of its order has taken notice of the fact that from the letter dated 25.2.2005 it is clear that till the date LT line and HT line over the plots including the plot of the complainant had not been removed and for this reason the stand taken from the side of the appellant is belied on record. Under the circumstances of the case the District Forum was justified in coming to the conclusion that the letter of offer of possession bearing No. 3876 dated 21.4.1999 was meaningless when the complainant could not carry out any construction over the plot on account of existence of the HT line overhead of the said plot. No fault can be found with the finding of the District Forum in this regard. It deserves to be noticed that the order in this case was reserved on 12.6.2006 after the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants were heard. Thereafter, an application dated 13.6.2006 was presented by the learned Counsel for the appellant seeking permission to place on record written submissions made by the appellants in support of their case. Needless to say, if the appellants wanted to file written submission, they should have done so prior to the date fixed for arguments or even on the date when the arguments were heard, but not subsequent thereto. Be it that may, the additional ground taken in the written submission is that the complainant being re-allottee cannot file the complaint and reliance was placed on case Haryana State Development Authority v. Dr. Ram Saran Gauba, 2001 (3) CON.LT 388. The other submission made was that the complaint was barred by limitation in terms of Section 24A of the Act, 1986, as the letter of possession was issued on 21.4.1999, while the complaint came to be filed on 23.3.2005. None of the above submissions carry any conviction at all. It is admitted case of the appellants that earlier the plot was allotted to Chander Gupta Bansal and thereafter it was re-allotted to the complainant as per letter bearing memo No. 2250 dated 20.3.1997. It was specifically mentioned in the allotment letter that the allottee shall henceforth have has to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter stated so read with the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and the instructions/guidelines and rules, regulations thereunder. The terms of the allotment letter have been specified in detail. Therefore, taking into account terms of the allotment, the case of the complainant would be covered under the definition expression ''Consumer'' contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986. Even otherwise the subsequent allottee steps into the shoes of original allottee and is entitled to all benefits of services, which were available to the original allottee. The Hon''ble National Commission in case HUDA v. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal, III (2002) CPJ 245 (NC)=2002 (1) CPC 638 upheld the order of the State Commission wherein the plot was allotted to one Smt. Kamla Verma who after paying full price was given possession and conveyance - deed was also executed. After sometime the plot was sold by her to the complainant Krishan Kumar Aggarwal for which registered sale-deed was executed. When the purchaser moved the HUDA authorities to change the name in the record, it was not done on the ground that five instalments were due from the original purchaser. The District Forum found that all the instalments had been paid and directed the HUDA authorities to register the transfer certificate in favour of the complainant and further awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000. The appeal was dismissed in limine by the State Commission. Before Hon''ble National Commission it was submitted that the complainant was not a consumer. The Hon''ble National Commission expressed its surprise to the stand taken by the public authority like HUDA because the complainant had purchased the plot from the original allottee and after getting the conveyance-deed registered and by not registering the transfer, without appropriate reasons, was held to be deficiency in service. But the present case is on better footing than the above mentioned case. In this case allotment letters have been issued in the name of the complainant. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission made from the side of the appellants in this regard. Coming to the other submission made, the complaint cannot be held to be barred by time because it had not been established on record that the high tension HT wire had been removed by the opposite parties when the complaint was filed.

UNDER the circumstances of the case, no fault can be found with the findings of the District Forum and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.