HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SWARAN KANTA

THE complainant was allotted plot measuring 207 sq. yards for Rs. 1,60,303/- on 29.8.1991. She deposited as many as 7 instalments totalling Rs. 1,40,2661/- regularly. However, possession was not delivered because the development work was not complete even at the time of filing of written statement in the District Forum on 266.9.1997. THE District Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh ordered on 5.8.1999 refund of the deposit together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of various deposits and costs Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

AFTER perusal of the impugned order there is no dispute regarding question of facts. We have ourselves gone through para No. 10 of the reply filed by HUDA wherein it was averred that the development work was going on and possession of plot could only be delivered after completion of development work. The District Forum has given the reasons based on facts and merits of the case in para No. 6 of its order and it is reproduced as under : "We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost care and circumspection and find that this is a case wherein complainant was allotted plot vide allotment letter dated 27.8.1991 and she deposited Rs. 1,40,261/- with opposite parties upto 31.12.1996. Complainant wrote several letters to opposite parties requesting them to deliver the physical possession of the plot. The aforesaid facts, bear a mute, nay an eloquent testimony to this effect that complainant was eager to have a plot from HUDA, and as such she had been making payment of instalments since its allotment, but her hopes for getting the plot stood dashed, when the physical possession of the plot was never offered to her still so far."

The present case is not a case of surrender and, therefore, HUDA & Anr. v. Kewal Krishan Goel & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1981, where forfeiture of 10% of the deposit was upheld, is not applicable here. In the aforesaid case, the allottee surrendered the plot on account of lack of funds. On behalf of the respondent, our attention has been drawn to Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Rajnish Chander Sharda, 2000 (1) CPC 259, where in such a case the Supreme Court has recently allowed interest at the rate of 18% per annum besides other reliefs, which of course was not claimed in the present complaint.

The conclusion is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.