HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SWARAN KANTA

THIS order shall dispose of two Appeals, No. 4 of 2004 titled as HUDA and Another v. Swaran Kanta, and No. 3003 of 2003 titled as Swaran Kanta v. HUDA and Another, as they have arisen out of the common order dated 27.11.2003 passed by District Forum, Panchkula. The District Forum while accepting the complaint of Swaran Kanta-complainant had issued the following directions to the opposite parties: "(a) To complete the development works in and around the plot allotted to the complainant. (b) Not to charge penal interest on the balance amount of the plot w.e.f. 12.6.2001 till the development is complete as per (a) above, and (c) also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as costs of proceedings. Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the above order, both the parties have filed the appeals.

IN order to decide the controversy, few facts need to be noticed in the forefront. A plot bearing No. 1184 measuring 220 square metres situated in Sector 40, Gurgaon was allotted to the complainant vide memo No. 618 dated 5.3.2001 by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon-opposite party No. 1 on a tentative price of Rs. 11,84,040. IN terms of the allotment letter, the complainant deposited 25% of the tentative price with the opposite parties. It was stipulated in Clause 7 of the allotment letter that the possession of the site would be offered to the complainant on completion of development work in the area. Accordingly, offer of possession was made to the complainant by the opposite party No. 1 as per memo No. 1789 dated 12.6.2001 wherein the complainant was asked to take possession of the plot in question on 25.7.2001. Sh. P.C. Sanghi, General Power of Attorney holder of the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 1 at Gurgaon on 25.7.2001 and submitted a written letter No. SPE (S) 924 dated 25.7.2001 wherein he intimated to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon that he was interested to take possession of the said plot and the same be delivered to him so that he can start the construction over the said plot. It is further case of the complainant that opposite party No. 1 had forwarded possession certificate after a period of 3 months vide letter bearing No. 3414 dated 29.10.2001 in triplicate which was submitted by the complainant to the office of the opposite party No. 1 on 25.7.2001 and in this manner the opposite party No. 1 has grossly misused the prescribed proforma of the possession certificate got filled from him on 25.7.2001 and then had misused his authority, though the amenities like electric lines, OHSR, UGT, Parks, Health Centre, Dispensary, Community Centre, Shopping Centre, Nursery, Primary and High School, Police Post, etc. as per layout plan of Sector 46 has not been completed. Thereafter the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint alleging that the letter bearing memo No. 1789 dated 12.6.2001 relating to the offer of possession was a sham offer as the basic facilities of electricity connection, water supply, etc. have not been completed in the area where the plot in question is located and for that reason the letter in triplicate signed by the general power of attorney of the complainant and submitted to the office of the opposite party on 25.7.2001 cannot be construed as taking of possession of the site by the complainant. Accordingly, it was prayed that the opposite parties be restrained from charging the interest on the balance price of the plot as on 12.6.2001 w.e.f. the date of offer of possession as development work has not been completed at the site as per layout plan. Escalation in the cost of construction be awarded from the year 2001 till the time the actual possession of the site is delivered to the complainant after completing development work and to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000 as cost of proceedings. The claim was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed, they pleaded that possession of the allotted plot to the complainant was offered vide memo No. 1789 dated 12.6.2001 after completion of all development works in that area and they have a right to claim interest @ 15% in terms of Clause 6 of the allotment letter for the delayed payment of the instalment amount. It was further pleaded that possession of the plot was taken by Sh. P.C. Sanghi, General Power of Attorney of the complainant on 29.10.2001 after completion of all development works in that area. Thus, they prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum on appraisal of pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record passed the order dated 27.11.2003 noticed earlier.

The learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

IT has been contended by the learned Counsel representing the complainant that the opposite parties had manoeuvred to obtain certificate in triplicate relating to the offer of possession of the allotted plot to him on behalf of the complainant on 25.7.2001 despite the fact that no development work has been completed at the site. He in particular referred to letter dated 25.7.2001 addressed to the Estate Officer, HUDA where Sh. P.C. Sanghi has pointed out that he had noticed that the offer of possession of plot in question is a sham offer because development work was not complete as electricity outlines have not been provided and no electricity connection can be given and OHSR have also not been provided. UGT has not been provided and in the absence of that water cannot be supplied and other amenities like Parks, Health Centres, Community Centre, Shopping Centre, Nursery, Primary and High Schools, Police Posts have not been provided. Thus, according to the learned Counsel the letter of protest should be given due consideration as it cannot be construed as an afterthought version on the part of the complainant. Opposing the submission made, it has been strenuously contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that Sh. P.C. Sanghi is a (Retd.) Chief Engineer and is well conversant with the factual position at the site where the plot of the complainant is located and after having satisfied himself that the development work which has been completed in the area where the plot of the complainant is located had issued and signed the certificate in triplicate wherein he has clearly stated that he has taken possession of the plot of the stated dimension from the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon and thus the complainant is estopped from taking a contrary plea to that recorded in the certificate stated above.

THERE is a considerable merit in the stand taken from the side of the opposite parties because it is quite understandable that Sh. P.C. Sanghi is highly educated person and it is not believable that without verifying the factual position at the site had chosen to issue a letter of possession dated 29.10.2001 on 25.7.2001. It cannot be assumed that he was under any pressure of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon at that time. He with open eyes had signed the possession certificate though he wanted to wriggle out of the same by taking a plea that it is a post-dated certificate. THEREfore, circumstances of the case noticed above fully justify the rejection of the stand taken from the side of the complainant. The District Forum while accepting the complaint has solely placed reliance on the affidavit furnished by the general power of attorney of the complainant without giving due value to the certificate issued by him dated 29.10.201. THEREfore, the direction issued in the impugned order of the District Forum as such cannot be sustained. For the reasons stated above, Appeal No. 4 of 2004, HUDA v. Swaran Kanta, is accepted and while rejecting the Appeal No. 3003 of 2003 titled Swaran Kanta v. HUDA, the impugned order dated 27.11.2003 of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is accordingly dismissed. Ordered accordingly.