HUDA & ANR. vs AMIT MARWAH

This Revision Petition by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short "HUDA"), Gurgaon, is directed against order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in F.A. No.156/2004. The impugned order reads as follows : "It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that he has already taken the possession of the plot in question and the development work has also been complete in the area. Therefore, he has no objection if the appeal of the Appellant - HUDA is accepted and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent, this appeal is accepted and order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal is ordered to be released to the appellant after proper receipt, identification and verification."

The sole grievance of HUDA is that the Appeal was allowed by the State Commission on the basis of a wrong statement made on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant to the effect that he had already taken possession of the plot in question, although there was no document on record to show the delivery of possession of the plot in question to him. It is submitted that, as a matter of fact, the Respondent had waived his right for possession of the plot as his prayer in the Complaint was only for a direction to HUDA to refund the entire amount deposited by him with them along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the order passed by the District Forum, granting prayer for refund of the amount deposited, having been challenged by HUDA in its Appeal before the State Commission shows that it was not keen to refund the amount. In other words, instead of refunding the money, as directed by the District Forum, HUDA still wanted to deliver possession of the plot in question to the Respondent. When the case came up for hearing on 23.7.2014, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we had requested the Chief Administrator, HUDA to examine the case and send his report, particularly with reference to HUDA''s letter dated 10.3.2005 read with affidavit dated 25.10.2004 filed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon before the State Commission, giving an indication that the Sector in which the subject plot was situated, had been developed and possession of the plots could be delivered. In deference to the said order, the Chief Administrator, HUDA has filed affidavit dated 5.9.2014, wherein it is stated that the letter dated 10.3.2005 was issued to the Respondent by the Estate Officer inadvertently, for which his explanation has been sought and if it is found that the letter was issued with mala fide intention, appropriate disciplinary action would be initiated against the defaulting officials. It is further stated that affidavit dated 25.10.2004 filed by the then Estate Officer, Gurgaon only indicated the status of the completion of the development work on the plot in question. It is also pleaded that the Respondent having surrendered the plot, there is no provision in the policy and instructions of HUDA to restore the same. Reference to certain orders passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court and this Commission has also been made in the said affidavit.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is without any substance, in as much as, by the impugned order the State Commission has allowed HUDA''s Appeal on the basis of the statement by the Respondent, to which HUDA could not have any objection. In so far as the question of

physical possession of the plot in question is concerned, the issue was not the subject matter of the Complaint as no such prayer had been made therein. Therefore, the said question is beyond the scope of the dispute raised by the Respondent in his Complaint. At the cost of repetition, we may note that Respondent''s prayer for refund of the amount deposited by him with HUDA, on account of non-delivery of the possession of the plot, was granted and therefore, he could not turn around and plead for delivery of possession of the plot. Similarly, as per the affidavit filed by the Chief Administrator, the amount was refunded as per the policy. If that was so, we are unable to appreciate why counsel for HUDA did not bring this fact to the notice of State Commission when afore-noted statement regarding possession was made on behalf of the Respondent. Be that as it may, technically speaking, HUDA''s Appeal having been allowed by consent, it cannot be held that the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error, warranting our interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

Since it is stated before us by learned counsel appearing for the Respondent that the cheque for the refund of the amount, issued by HUDA, had not been encashed, it will be open to the Respondent to approach HUDA for refund of the said amount. We, however, clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival stands of the parties on the question of physical possession of the subject plot and it will be open to them to have the said issue resolved in accordance with law, as and when advised. It is also pertinent to note that the Revision Petition by HUDA is barred by limitation by 1583 days, for which no satisfactory explanation had been furnished.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation as well.