NIRMAL MITTAL vs State of Haryana

AS a consequence of success in the draw of lots, the complainant was allotted Plot No. 281 measuring 420 sq. mts. for Rs. 2,80,140/- by the Haryana Urban Development Authority on 2.3.1991. The price was enhanced and the total sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- was deposited by the prescribed date i.e. 23.8.1997. Since possession of plot delivered to the complainant, the present complaint has been instituted and the relief claimed is as under : (i) Refund of the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- paid to opposite party-2 as price of the plot. (ii) Interest @ 18% p.a. the very rate opposite party-2 charges from the allottees for delayed payments, amounting-to about Rs. 3,00,000/- (subject to actual calculation). (iii) An amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation against escalation in cost of construction in accordance with the cost inflation index (copy at Annexure C-III). (iv) An amount of Rs. 70,000/- as damages against mental agony and physical harassment. (v) An amount of Rs. 10,000/- against litigation cost.

A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 wherein it has been averred that the State Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction because the plot is situated at Jagadhri and Head Office of HUDA is situated at Panchkula. Besides this on 24.6.1994 the complainant was offered possession of the plot but she did not come forward for the aforesaid purpose. The other pleas are that the area is fully developed and ready for delivery of possession. The land in dispute did not fall in the area for which litigation remained pending in the High Court. The complainant never visited the office of HUDA to take possession of the plot. She is not entitled to any compensation. Besides this the complaint is barred by time. There is a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent that this State Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because the plot in question is situated in Jagadhri in Haryana and there is a separate Commission for Haryana. On behalf of the complainant it has been pointed out that a notification published on 13.1.1997 issued by the Government of Haryana contains a specific mention that HUDA was having its Headquarters at Chandigarh. The respondent could not show any notification or documents rebutting the aforesaid notification of 13.1.1997. Besides this State of Haryana through the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Urban Estates Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, has also been impleaded as a respondent and in all these circumstances the plea of territorial jurisdiction does not have much force in this case.

The fact that the plot was allotted on 28.8.1991 and the complainant had been depositing the instalments and the enhanced price totalling a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/-, is not disputed. In this case the learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to Memo No. 3675 dated 5.8.1998 from the Estate Officer, HUDA, Jagadhri addressed to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, which reads as under : "In this connection, it is intimated that the possession was offered to the allottees of developed part of Sector 15, Jagadhri during June, 1994, i.e. 425 numbers of plots, but due to Court cases, the physical possession could not be given and building plans of allottees were also not being; approved. In this connection a D.O. letter No. 3099- 3102 dated 10.7.1998 was also sent to your good self detailing all the Court cases and status of the Sectors. You are requested to advise this office that according to detail given in above said D.O., this office can approve the building plans of allottee or not, can offer physical possession or not, can recover the dues or not; can allow transfer of plot or not. This office may also be advised whether fresh possession can be offered by this office or the possession already offered during 1994 will be continued. This advice may be given as early as possible."

Besides this there is a letter dated 1.5.1998, Annexure C6 from the Administrator, HUDA to the Chief Administrator and Director, HUDA and it is also reproduced as under : "It is intimated that acquisition of land of Sector 15, Jagadhri has been quashed in abovesaid petition. HUDA has already developed the sector, now allottees are filing Court cases for allotment of alternative plot or refund the amount with interest. It is, therefore, requested to direct the concerned office to file S.L.P. in the matter and obtain stay against the order of the High Court in abovesaid writ petition or advise this office for taking further action in the matter. It may kindly be treated most urgent."

A perusal of these two letters shows that on account of litigation challenging acquisition of the land remained pending. The Estate Officer, Jagadhri was not in a position to deliver physical possession of the plot to the complainant who had been depositing the price regularly. The improvised plea of the respondent through Annexure R1 which is letter dated 24.6.1994 that it had offered possession of the plot to the complainant is in contradiction with the letters of the respondent referred to above. Usually HUDA was required to hand-over possession of a developed plot within three years of the allotment of the plot which was made on 23.8.1991 but in this case possession was not delivered till 5.8.1998 (Annexure C4) nor the respondent was in a position to do so. Thus deficiency on the part of the respondent is well established in this case.

ON behalf of the respondent a kind of surprise has been expressed as to how the complainant was able to secure Memo No. 3615 dated 5.8.1998 and Endst. No. A-3-98/3064 dated 1.5.1998 (Annexure C6). These are not privileged documents. The authenticity of these official letters has not been challenged. Since it has been established that physical possession was not delivered to the complainant till institution of the complaint the plea of limitation also lost its significance. The conclusion is that the complaint succeeds. It is ordered that the respondents shall refund Rs. 3,20,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from 23.8.1997, when the total price was deposited. Besides this it is also ordered that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for the overall loss suffered by the complainant and costs Rs. 2,000/-. Complaint allowed with costs.