JAIBIR SINGH vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1284 of 2009 - The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Ors. Vs. Jaibir by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased Plot No. 3951, Sector 23 -23 -A, Gurgaon in the year 1994 from OP/respondent. Complainant sought possession of plot from OP, but OP disclosed that plot was omitted from zonal plan. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed Complaint No. 352/1996 before Consumer Forum, which was allowed by order dated 25.7.1996. OP filed appeal which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide order dated 3.8.1998. OP offered alternate Plot No. 1053 -G, Sector 22, Gurgaon on 19.2.2004, but demanded market price at the rate of Rs.3850/ - per sq. yds. Complainant accepted the offer, but prayed for allotting plot at the cost at which original plot was allotted. Complainant also filed Execution Petition before District Forum, but as District Forum did not pass any order, complainant filed another complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that alternate plot was given at the existing rates as per HUDA policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and observed that OP can charge price of alternate plot only equal to the price on which previous plot was given. It was further observed that if any excess payment has been made by the complainant, that shall be refunded along with 9% p.a. interest and if there are any dues, they shall be paid by the complainant. Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that order dated 3.8.1998 passed by learned State Commission attained finality and OP was bound to allot alternate plot on the price on which previous plot was given, OP demanded current market rate and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal on the ground that alternate plot was not claimed in the first complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that learned District Forum vide order dated 25.7.1996 directed OP to deliver possession of alternate plot within 2 months to the complainant and further allowed interest for the period of delay in handing over possession and this order was affirmed by learned State Commission. When appeal was dismissed by order dated 3.8.1998, OP was under an obligation to implement the order of District Forum, but to our utter surprise, OP vide letter dated 19.2.2004 offered alternative plot and demanded cost of alternative plot @ Rs.3850/ - per sq. yd., whereas it was to be allotted in the exchange of omitted plot, meaning thereby at the rate at which original plot was allotted. Apparently, OP issued letter dated 19.2.2004 in violation of order of State Commission which had attained finality. Complainant also filed Execution Application before District Forum, but it appears that no order was passed on that Execution application and complainant filed another complaint for quashing demand of market rate and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint and directed OP to charge the price of the alternate price only equal to the price on which previous plot was given.

LEARNED State Commission while allowing appeal observed that remedy for seeking alternative plot at the rate at which the original plot was allotted, was not claimed or if claimed and not granted would be deemed to have been denied and fresh complaint was not maintainable. We do not agree with the observations made by learned State Commission as in the original complaint which was allowed by order dated 25.7.1996. OP was directed to handover possession of the alternate plot which makes it crystal clear that alternative plot was to be allotted on the rate on which omitted plot was allotted and there was no question of subsequently seeking prayer for alternate plot at the rate on which original plot was allotted. Learned State Commission has taken erroneous view that remedy for seeking alternative plot at the rate at which original plot was allotted was not claimed or if claim was not granted would amount to denial of relief. In such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside and order of District Forum is to be affirmed.

PERUSAL of record further reveals that during pendency of appeal before State Commission, OP executed Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant on 21.3.2011, but it was observed in the Conveyance Deed that complainant undertakes to pay additional price if any determined and demanded by the Estate Officer. We hereby observe that no extra payment on the basis of market price is to be made by the complainant. As observed earlier, respondent should have complied with the order of District Forum, but intentionally harassed complainant by demanding price of plot at market rate. We direct Chief Administrator of Respondent -HUDA to take disciplinary action against the concerned officers who issued letter dated 19.2.2004 demanding price of plot @ Rs.3850/ - per sq. yd.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1284 of 2009 - The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Dev. Authority and Ors. Vs. Jaibir is set aside and order of District Forum allowing complaint is affirmed with no order as to costs.