H.U.D.A. & Anr. vs Shashi Prabha Anand

This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners/OPs-HUDA & Anr. against the order dated 5.10.2010 of the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission''), passed in Appeal No. 2609 of 2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant was allotted a plot on 23.1.1986 The complainant deposited 15% of the total consideration on 6.3.1990. The complainant received a notice in the year 2003 which mentioned the balance demand against said plot as under:

Instalment as on 15.6.2003 Rs. 4,26,413

Enhancement as on 15.6.2003 Rs. 3,25,059

VIth Instalment due on (Penalty) Rs. 4,191

The complainant filed a complaint No. 140 of 2004 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, (in short, the "District Forum") claiming that he has already paid the instalments and additional demand for increase in cost of land acquisition has been wrongly raised by the petitioner. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that no instalments were paid by the complainant after initial payment of 15% and that the increased demand is in respect of the increased land acquisition cost ordered by the Court which the petitioner was required to realize from the plot owners only. 4. The District Forum vide its order dated 7.8.2007 decided the complaint as under: "It is observed that the complainant is well liable to pay interest as per HUDA policy on the amount of delayed payment of instalment. The opposite parties are quite silent on the point as to when the offer of possession of the plot in question was given to the complainant. In these circumstances the complainant, therefore, would be well entitled not to pay interest on the future instalments till the date on which the possession of the plot in question was offered by the opposite parties. The complainant would well be liable to pay enhancement cost together with interest or surcharge, if any, on delayed payment and would also be liable to pay the penalty in case of any default on part of the complainant as per the HUDA policy. We, therefore, allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties not to charge any interest on the amount of future instalments till the offer of the possession of the plot in question by the opposite parties is made to the complainant. Since the complainant has failed to show on record that the complainant ever applied to the opposite parties for delivery of the actual physical possession before the opposite parties as per the procedure prescribed. The complainant has also failed to pay the amount due towards him so as to make himself entitled to the delivery of physical possession of the plot in question. The opposite parties are to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the complainant, if the complainant fulfils all the requirements as required by the opposite parties as per the terms and conditions of the allotment and the policy framed by the opposite parties for this purpose." 5. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, which vide its order dated 5.10.2010 decided the appeal as under: "The opposite parties have failed to prove on the record as to whether any notice/letter with respect to the enhanced amount made by the Land Acquisition Collector has been given to the complainant. The present appeal has been filed by the complainant with a view to know about exact outstanding amount against which HUDA has paid in the Court with respect to the plot in question. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh notice to the complainant with respect to the enhanced amount made by the Land Acquisition Collector by giving opportunity to pay the entire amount within 30 days from the date of issue of the notice. The order of the District Consumer Forum to this extent is modified. It is further made clear that prior to the offer of possession to the complainant, she will not be liable to pay any interest and whatever calculation the opposite parties shall make, will be recovered from the complainant with simple interest as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. Whatever amount has been paid by the complainant, the same would be governed by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter by charging simple interest and HUDA will not charge compound interest " 6. Hence this revision petition. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the complaint has been filed after 17 years and is barred by limitation. However, this aspect has not been considered by the Fora below. Moreover, the complainant had not paid all the instalments in time and, therefore, interest on the instalments as per the provisions of the allotment letter was to be levied. The Clause 9 of the allotment letter dated 23.1.1986 clearly states that. "The above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately as determined by the authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within thirty days of its demand." Thus, it was clear from the very beginning that if there is any increase in the price of land acquisition, the same would be realized from the allottees only. As the additional price was required to be paid to the original land owners whose land was acquired, additional demand was sent to all the allottees. Notice dated 27.12.1991 was sent to the complainant for depositing Rs. 67,884 as additional cost for land acquisition. There was no response from the complainant. However, in response to the letter of the complainant, the petitioner again informed him vide letter dated 31.5.2003 the details of the outstanding dues on the plot which were as under: The balance against the said plot are as under:

Instalment as on 15.6.2003 Rs. 4,26,413

Enhancement as on 15.6.2003 Rs. 3,25,059

VIth Instalment due on (Penalty) Rs. 4,191

The complainants then filed the complaint before District Forum and District Forum has critically examined all the aspects and has reached to the conclusion that the interest was payable as per the conditions of allotment on the unpaid instalments and that the additional amount for land acquisition was also to be paid by the complainant along with interest as per rules of HUDA. The complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission has wrongly assumed that all instalments have been paid by the complainant by the year 1992. Moreover, the State Commission has again asked to issue notice of the amount demanded as additional amount for land acquisition which is not justified in the present case because the amount has to be paid with interest and the same notice which was issued in the year 1991 cannot be issued in the year 2016 again. The petitioner organization has to pay interest to the original owners of the land whose land was acquired and therefore, the interest is ought to be realized from the allottees. Thus, the order of the State Commission is prima facie against the rules and common financial norms. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the State Commission has not given any reason for treating all the instalments as paid by the complainant by the year 1992. Thus, the order of the State Commission is a non-speaking order and needs to be set aside. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that after depositing 15% of the consideration amount, it was only Rs. 43,631 which was to be paid in six annual instalments with 10% interest for default. The complainant has paid all the instalments as mentioned in the complaint. The State Commission has clearly observed in its order that all the instalments stand paid by the complainant by the year 1992. The main question now remains with respect to the additional demand relating to increased price for land acquisition. It was argued that the complainant had never received any letter dated 27.12.1991, rather, when he demanded the details of dues of the plot he was replied vide petitioner''s letter dated 31.5.2003 that a sum of about Rs. 7,55,663 was due as on 15.6.2003. If the notice is not received by the complainant, how is he responsible for interest on the due amount. Moreover, only 10% interest was to be charged on instalments for delayed payment but the petitioner has charged interest at very high rate as would be clear from the fact that the amount of Rs. 67,884 reached to a figure of Rs. 3,25,059 within about two years. The petitioner is a Government institution and cannot charge arbitrary interest on the due amounts. The learned Counsel argued that as per Clause 9 of the allotment letter, the complainant is ready to pay the increase in land acquisition price but the same cannot be charged along with arbitrary high interest rate. The District Forum has wrongly stated that the instalments were not paid and that is why the appeal was filed by the complainant, which was allowed by the State Commission. So far as the issue of filing the complaint after 17 years is concerned, the cause of action arose when the complainant received letter dated 31.5.2003 of the petitioner giving the demand of about Rs. 7,55,663. Therefore, the complaint is well within the time period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 12. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have examined the record. There are only two questions involved. The first relates to the payment of instalments by the allottee/complainant as well as interest payable on those instalments and the second relates to the payment of additional cost of land acquisition. So far as the first issue is concerned, the complainant had claimed that all the instalments were paid by the year 1992, which has been accepted by the State Commission. The petitioners have not clarified on this issue, whether, the instalments have been received by them or not. Though, the State Commission has clearly observed in its order that all the instalments have been paid by the complainant by the year 1992, yet, nothing contrary has been mentioned in the revision petition filed by the petitioners. No ground taken for filing the revision deals with this aspect. Hence, I am of the opinion that this issue stands settled between the parties and that is why the observation of the State Commission in this regard has not been specifically challenged. Therefore, I do not intend to examine this question any further and will go along with the observation of the State Commission. 13. So far as the issue regarding the payment of additional charges for land acquisition is concerned, the terms and conditions of the allotment were very clear. Any additional amount because of any enhancement in the land acquisition cost, shall be payable by the allottee, when demanded by the petitioners. The petitioner demanded for the first time, in the year 1991 an amount of Rs. 67,884 as additional cost for land acquisition from the complainant. Though, the complainant has denied the receipt of this notice, but the complainant was again informed on 31.5. 2003 the details of the outstanding dues of the plot wherein this cost was informed as Rs. 3,25,059 as on 15.6.2003. It is clear that the complainant escaped from his responsibility to deposit the additional cost of land acquisition as demanded by the petitioners. The State Commission has directed the petitioners to issue ''demand notice'' again to the complainant. I find substance in the arguments of the petitioners that notice which was issued in the year 1991 cannot again be issued in the year 2016. Obviously, the petitioner-HUDA is paying interest to the land owners whose land was acquired on the amount of cost of land. The petitioners are duty bound to recover it from the allottees, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The notice dated 27.12.1991 by which the demand of Rs. 67,834 was made, clearly mentions that if the amount is not paid within 30 days, interest of 15% p.a. shall be charged. Thus, clearly the complainant is liable to pay interest on this amount as per condition of interest mentioned in the notice dated 27.12.1991 in accordance with the policy of the petitioners. 14. Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed and order of the State Commission directing the opposite parties/petitioners herein to send notice of additional cost of land acquisition is set aside. The respondent is liable to pay to the petitioners/HUDA the amount of Rs. 67,884 along with the interest from 27.1.1992 till actual payment as per condition of interest mentioned in the notice dated 27.12.1991 in accordance with the policy of the petitioners before the possession is given to the respondent. The orders of the Fora below stand modified accordingly. No order as to costs. Revision Petition partly Allowed.