Huda , Estate Officer vs Darab Singh Gill

THE complainants/respondents were allotted plot No. 2992 in Sector 15 of Panchkula by the petitioner Haryana Urban Development Authority. However, handing over of the physical possession of the aforesaid plot to the complainant was delayed by the petitioner. The case of the complainant is that though the possession on paper was delivered to them on 2003, actual physical possession of the site was not given to them. In April 2004, the officials of the petitioner authority, showed site in question to the complainants and at that time they found that the plot allotted to them was surrendered by two transformers having 6 poles and there were 2 poles on the plot with a supporting wire. The complainants also found a board of guide map, showing 2 poles installed on the plot allotted to them. Claiming that no construction could be made on the plot without removing the electric poles and transformers, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking the following reliefs: - "a. To pay interest at the rate of 18% on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of deposit till the hindrances are removed;

b. Not to charge any interest on the instalments and to refund the interest charged on the instalments;

c. To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/ - as mental agony and harassment;

d. To pay Rs.5,000/ - as litigation expenses and counsel fees;"

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner Authority on the ground that the complaint was only a lame excuse in order to avoid liability on account of delay in raising construction. It was further stated in the said reply that as per the report of the concerned Junior Engineer, the electrical poles were installed on berm portion and there was no supporting wire on the plot.

THE District Forum vide its order dated 09.08.2007 directed as under: - "a) To get the electric poles and web of electric wires removed in and around the plot of the complainant.

b) also pay to the complainants interest -compensation at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount deposited w.e.f. 16.1.2012 till removal of the electric poles as per direction above;

c) further, not to charge any interest or penalty for delayed payment of instalments till the removal of electric poles as directed vide(a) above.

d) Also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/ - as costs of proceedings. "

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner Authority approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since there was a delay of 134 days in filing the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay was also filed. Vide impugned order dated 15.06.2009, the State Commission dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and consequently also dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. During the course of judgment, the State Commission observed that since there was no hindrance in the construction of the house, the second and third direction given by the District Forum were liable to be struck down. However, since no case of condonation of delay in filing the appeal was made out, the State Commission did not strike down the aforesaid two directions. Being dissatisfied from dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

THE application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, to the extent it is relevant reads as under: - "2. That the certified copy of order dated 09.08.2007 passed by the District Forum, Panchkula was prepared on 14.8.07 and thereafter delivered to the counsel. Further the same has been received in the office of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. The case was lastly got by the legal cell at Panchkula, due to the administrative exigencies a delay of days has occurred in filing of the appeal which is not intentional."

It would thus, be seen that the certified copy of the order was ready with the District Forum on 14.08.2007 and it was also delivered to the counsel representing the petitioner before the said forum. The application seeking condonation of delay does not disclose the date on which the certified copy of the order was received in the office of the Estate Officer, HUDA at Panchkula. This is not the case in the application that the delay occurred on the part of the Advocate in dispatching the copy of the order of the District Forum to Estate Officer at Panchkula. Therefore, the inference would be that the certified copy of the order was received by the Estate Officer soon after 14.08.2007. The application does not disclose where the file remained lying from the date the certified copy of the order was received by Estate Officer till the date a decision was taken to file appeal against the order of the District Forum. In fact, the application does not even disclose on which date the decision was taken to challenge the order passed by the District Forum. It is vaguely alleged in the application that the case was lastly seen by legal cell at Panchkula but it is conspicuously silent as to when the file was sent to the legal cell and when it was cleared by the said cell. Once the prescribed period of limitation had expired, the petitioner ought to have explained the delay on each and every day in filing the appeal before the State Commission. Not only the petitioner failed to do so, it did not bother even to give datewise movement of the file in which the matter was processed after receipt of the copy of the order passed by the District Forum. The application does not disclose with whom the file was lying between the date on which certified copy of the order was received and the date on which the decision was taken to challenge the said order. In these circumstances, the view taken by the State Commission cannot be faulted with and consequently, no ground for interfering with the order passed by the State Commission in this regard is made out.

As regard the observations made by the State Commission, in our opinion since the State Commission had declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, it should not have entered into the merits of the appeal. Even otherwise, even if we go by the report of the Local Commissioner referred by the State Commission, it cannot be disputed that though there was no hindrance in the construction on account of the poles existing on the plot, a person accepting allotment of a plot from an urban development authority such as HUDA, would not like to take a plot with electric poles existing and / or electric wires hanging on the plot, even if the poles and / or the wires cause no hindrance in the construction of the house. He will always be worried about his safety on account of the electric poles installed and the wires hanging on his plot. In case the ground coverage is increased in future, he will not be able to take benefit of the increased coverage unless the pole and the wires are removed from the plot allotted to him. Therefore, we cannot agree with the view taken by the State Commission in this regard. In our view, the petitioner ought to have given physical possession of the plot without their being any pole erected on it and any electric wire hanging on the said plot. Since the petitioner eventually removed the pole from the place where it was installed, as noticed by the State Commission, it can hereby disputed that the petitioner Authority realised its mistake in the matter and took a remedial action though at a very late stage by removing the pole from the place where it was installed.

FOR the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.