Jagdish Kumar Kanojia vs HUDA

THE complainant/petitioner was allotted a plot bearing No.2667 in Sector 65 of HUDA, Faridabad vide allotment letter dated 21 -10 -2001 at a tentative price of Rs.6,69,170/ -. The petitioner/complainant paid a sum of Rs.66,917/ - along with application form, Rs.1,00,376/ - on 26 -11 -2001 and Rs.5,01,877/ - on 27 -12 -2001. The opposite party Haryana Urban Development Authority then issued a letter dated 01 -10 -2002 to the complainant/petitioner, demanding a sum of Rs.5,10,210/ - on account of the enhanced compensation paid to the land owners, whose land was acquired for development and allotment. The petitioner/complainant thereupon surrendered the aforesaid plot vide his application dated 28 -10 -2002. Accepting his request, the opposite party deduced a sum of Rs.1,17,938/ - from the deposit made by him and refunded the balance amount of Rs.5,53,032/ - to him. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid deduction, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking re -allotment of the cancelled plot. He also expressed willingness to redeposit the amount which had been refunded to him.

THE complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that the complainant having himself surrendered the plot allotted to him, the amount payable to him, as per the surrender policy of HUDA had already been refunded to him. The payment for additional premium was sought to be justified by HUDA in terms of clause 9 of the allotment letter which provided that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority/Court under the Land Acquisition Act shall be payable proportionately as determined by HUDA, within 30 days of the demand. It was also stated that the allotment having been cancelled on the request of the complainant cannot be revived.

THE District Forum noticed that the earnest money paid by the complainant was only Rs.66,917/ - and the entire tentative price had been paid by him within the stipulated period. The District Forum was of the view that HUDA could have deducted only Rs.66,917/ - from the amount deposited by the complainant and accordingly directed the opposite party to refund the balance amount of Rs.51,021/ - (17938 -66917) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application seeking refund till the date of actual payment. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - to the complainant towards cost of litigation and compensation. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 06 -08 -2009 the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant. Being aggrieved he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

THE State Commission, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant, noted that the complainant had expressed his inability to pay the additional amount demanded by HUDA on account of the enhancement of compensation and, therefore, surrendered the plot vide his application dated 28 -10 -2002. The request seeking refund was reiterated by the complainant vide his letter dated 15 -11 -2002 whereby he sought refund of the full amount of Rs.6,70,970/ -. It was also noticed by the State Commission that as per the terms of allotment the petitioner/complainant was required to pay the additional payment on account of enhanced land compensation, as the enhancement took place on 01 -10 -2002 whereas the plot was surrendered by him on 28 -10 -2002.

IN my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the District Forum and maintained by the State Commission. As per the terms of the allotment made to the complainant/petitioner he was under a contractual obligation to pay the additional amount demanded from him on account of enhancement of compensation for the land acquired by HUDA. Having accepted the allotment on the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter including the stipulation for payment of enhanced compensation, he ought to have either paid the additional amount demanded by HUDA or he could have surrendered the allotment made to him if he was not willing to pay the said additional demand. The petitioner/complainant obviously was not willing to pay the enhanced compensation and that is why he, vide application dated 28 -10 -2002, surrendered the plot and sought refund of the money deposited by him. In view of the complainant having surrendered the allotment, the opposite party was fully justified in forfeiting the earnest money amounting to Rs.66,917/ -, though it was not entitled to deduct an amount of Rs.1,17,938/ -. The District Forum and the State Commission, therefore, were fully justified in directing refund of the balance amount of Rs.51,021/ - to the complainant, along with interest and compensation. The order passed by the fora below calls for no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.