Manju Mangla vs Chief Administrator, Huda , Estate Officer, Huda

THE petitioner/complainant, Mrs. Manju Mangla, was allotted a plot, bearing No. 292, Sector -2, Faridabad, Haryana, vide allotment letter dated 18.11.1998 on a Tentative price of ? 7,89,360/ -. She deposited 10% of the amount in the sum of ? 78,936/ - and ? 1,18,404/ -, within 30 days from the issue of letter of allotment, meaning thereby she paid 25% of the tentative price of the plot.

IN the meantime, it transpired that the land in dispute was under litigation and its acquirement price was raised. The OP -HUDA demanded a sum of ?1,33,322/ - vide letter dated 23.10.2000 on account of enhanced price. The complainant applied for surrender of her plot vide letter dated 19.11.2001. The OP -HUDA refunded a sum of ? 2,99,396/ - after deducting an amount of ? 95,284/ -, out of the total deposits of ?3,94,680/ -.

THE defence set up by the OP -HUDA is that the petitioner surrendered the plot voluntarily. The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the OP to refund the balance amount of ? 95,285/ - minus ? 78,936/ -, keeping in mind that only 10% of the tentative cost is to be deducted, with interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f. the date of deposit till realization, along with costs of proceedings at ? 1,000/ -. The State Commission reversed the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. The State Commission, placed reliance on Civil Writ Petition No. 13951/2003, titled Naresh Kumar Solanki Vs. HUDA, wherein the facts were that the complainant had expressed his inability to purchase the plot at the enhanced price and for that reason, he had chosen to surrender it. The complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Similar view was taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in HUDA Vs. Kewal Krishan Goel and Ors., 1996 AIR(SC) 1981

WE have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent -HUDA, has defended the order passed by the State Commission. The facts of this case are wee bit different. Para 3 of the complaint, reads as under : - "That, in the meanwhile, HUDA issued a letter regarding enhancement of the cost of the plot. As per the said letter dated 23.10.2000, the price of the plot allotted to the complainant had been enhanced by a sum of ? 1,33,322/ -. Since, however, no offer of possession had been given by HUDA, in spite of passage of three years'' from the date of allotment, the complainant exercised his option to surrender the plot vide his letter dated 19.11.2001, sent through regd. post on 26.11.2001, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Annexure C/2".

BOTH the parties are bound by the Agreement entered into between the parties. The notice issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA and the letter dated 18.11.1998 (allotment letter) are crucial. This is an allotment by sale of residential plot No. 292, Sector -2, Faridabad, on ''free -hold'' basis. Its last para runs as follows : - "During the demarcation or at any stage after allotment if the plot of any allottee to be falling in an area under any litigation or development could not be done due to litigation / or possession is delayed due to litigation, then the allottee in such case will have to either wait for the possession of his plot till the litigation is over / the development works are completed in that pocket. The allottee can seek refund of the amount paid by him to HUDA. However, the amount shall be refunded to the allottee without interest. In either case, the allottee shall not have any right to claim an alternative plot. Note : Interest @ 18% will be charged on late payment".

THE learned counsel for the respondent could not deny the fact that due to litigation with the original owners of the plot, the possession of the plot could not be handed over to the petitioner/ complainant. The allotment letter is dated 18.11.1998. The possession of the plot, by the HUDA was not given to the petitioner, till the filing of this complaint, on 24.10.2002.

UNDER these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the refund of the money paid by the petitioner under the parameters of the rules and regulations, she is not bound to pay the amount of 10% deduction. Consequently, it is directed that the entire deducted amount be refunded to the petitioner/complainant by the OP -HUDA, from the day it was deducted with no interest up to that date, but the Petitioner is liable to pay interest on the withheld 10% of the amount. The said amount be paid within 90 days'' from the date of this order, with interest @ 10% p.a., from the day surrender letter was received, till its realization. The revision petition stands disposed of.