HUDA vs Anil Sehgal

COMPLAINANT/respondent was allotted industrial plot No. 12A measuring 540 square metres located in Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula at the rate of Rs. 484 per square metre vide Memo No. 8550 dated 27.4.1993. Respondent deposited 25% of the cost of the plot, i.e., Rs. 41,140 vide receipt No. 1997 dated 4.6.1993. As the complainant failed to deposit 75% of the total cost of the plot as per notice served, the Estate Office, Haryana Development Authority (for short ''HUDA)-opposite part No. 1 cancelled the said plot vide Memo No. 811 dated 20.1.1995. Complainant, thereafter, filed the Appeal before the Administrator, HUDA-Opposite Party No. 2 which was accepted and the cancelled plot was restored to the complainant subject to the payment of current price, i.e., @ Rs. 700 per square metre. Complainant, accordingly, deposited Rs. 3,12,660 vide receipt No. 3574 dated 3.1.1996 as desired by the Opposite Party No. 1 vide Memo No. 1104 dated 16.1.1996 towards the full and final payment of the plot. Thereafter, complainant approached the opposite parties for issuance of allotment letter which was issued vide letter No. EO(P)20059 dated 4.11.1997 but the opposite parties failed to deliver the physical possession of the plot in spite of several written requests. Being aggrieved, complainant filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ''the District Forum'').

ON being served, opposite parties filed their Written Statement denying the allegations made in the Complaint.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings as well as the evidence led by parties, allowed the Complaint and gave following directions: "(a) To offer physical possession of the plot No. 12A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula immediately or if it is not possible then to allot an alternative plot on the same price of the original plot and of same size and in the same sector. (b) Also to pay interest- compensation @ 15% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant before 27.4.1993 w.e.f. 27.4.1993 till offer of possession as per Clause (a) above and on the amount deposited after 27.4.1993 w.e.f. the date of deposit till offer of possession as per Clause (a) above. (c) And also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as costs of proceedings."

AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short ''the State Commission''). The State Commission, by the Impugned Order, modified the Order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to offer physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant immediately, or if it is not possible, then, to allot an alternative plot at a price of Rs. 700 per square metre as had been ordered by the Administrator, HUDA in Appeal and of same size and in the same sector. The rate of interest was reduced from 15% to 12% p.a. It was also observed that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to show that any dispute was pending either in the Court of Rajpura or Panchkula or in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. That no documents had been placed on record in respect of the stand taken that the possession of the plot could not be given because of the litigation pending in the Courts of Rajpura, Panchkula or the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

PETITIONER has filed an application for permission to take new pleas as well as for producing additional evidence. Pleas now being raised as well as the evidence the petitioner seeks to produce was in the knowledge of the petitioner during the pendency of the Complaint before the District Forum as well as the Appeal before the State Commission. No reasons, whatsoever, have been given in the application as to why pleas now sought to be taken and the evidence produced was not taken/produced before the Fora below. The Complaint was filed in the year 2001. At this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted either to take new pleas or to produce additional evidence.

IT would be seen from the narration of the facts that the petitioner was allotted the plot @ Rs. 484 per square metre for which he deposited Rs. 41,140, being 25% of the total cost of the plot, and, as he could not deposit rest of the amount of 75%, his allotment was cancelled. Later on, in Appeal, the plot was restored to him at an enhanced price of Rs. 700 per square metre and the respondent deposited Rs. 3,12,660 as demanded by the petitioner towards the full and final payment of the plot in question on 16.1.1996. The plot was allotted to him on 4.11.1997. Despite the fact that the respondent had deposited the entire amount in the year 1996 and the plot was allotted to him in the year 1997, respondent was neither handed over the possession of the plot already allotted, to him nor given any other alternate plot. The Fora below have directed the petitioner to either handover the possession of the plot already allotted to the respondent or, if it is not possible to do so, to allot him any other alternate plot. Such a direction is justified for the simple reason that the respondent is being denied the use of the money which was deposited by him as well as the use of the plot allotted to him. 15 years have passed by but the respondent has not been given the possession of the plot already allotted to him. No reasons have been forthcoming as to why the plot was not allotted to the respondent.

THE State Commission, in its Order, has specifically observed that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to show that any dispute was pending in the Courts of Rajpura, Panchkula or in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana regarding the land in question. No documents have been placed on record in support of the stand taken by .the petitioner that the possession of the plot could not be given because of any litigation pending in the Courts of Rajpura, Panchkula or in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Petitioner, after having accepted the full cost of the plot, in question, was duty bound to handover the possession of the plot allotted to the respondent and, if it is not possible to do so, then, to allot any other plot. By not doing so, the petitioner is clearly guilty of deficiency in service. Respondent has been deprived of the use of money deposited by him with the petitioner for the last 15 years. Fora below are justified in ordering the petitioner to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to the respondent on the amount deposited till handing over of the possession of the plot to the respondent.

FOR the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition dismissed.