OMKAR SINGH KALRA vs U.P.Housing AND Development Board

THIS complaint has been filed by Dr. Omkar Singh Kalra, ex-Captain claiming possession of a plot measuring 800 sq. yards at the rate of Rs. 18/- per sq. yard in Indira Nagar Colony in Dehradun, and a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for physical and mental torture and financial loss.

THE facts of the case are that the complainant comes in the category of defence quota and the opposite party U.P. Housing & Development Board is committed to allot the property applied for as per reservation quota to the staff of the Defence Department. He had applied for a plot in 1973 under the Defence quota, in Indiranagar Housing Scheme, Dehradun and obtained Registration Certificate for the purpose. An amount of Rs. 200/- was deposited with the opposite party in 1973 against which the registration certificate was issued by the opposite party, Housing Board. THE complainant had applied for the plot after going through the brochure of the scheme which indicated that the plots in Indira Nagar Colony of Dehradun would be available at the rate of Rs. 18/- per sq. yd. and on this price a fully developed plot was to be allotted to him. By registering himself in 1983 for plot under the above scheme, he did not apply for any property elsewhere in the full hope that the plot would be allotted to him. After a considerable period of time when the plot was not allotted to him, he got his grievance published in the newspaper "Tribune". Ultimately the complainant was allotted a plot in the said scheme but the price determined by the Housing Board was Rs. 140/- per sq. yd. which was eight times more than the rate published in the brochure. This enhancement of rate by no logic is justifiable as when the brochure had indicated that the price of Rs. 18/- per sq. yd., the Board would have acquired and developed the land and that is why the price should have been same as published in the brochure. A number of representations were given by the complainant to the opposite party but with no effect. Ultimately a legal notice was given on 14.6.1986 but the opposite party in reply asked the complainant to approach the proper Court for the resolution of his complaint. Because of this deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the Housing Board, the complainant is undergoing metal strain since 1973. THE opposite party was bound to allot to the complainant the plot of 800 sq. yds. at the rate of Rs. 18/- per sq. yd. A claim was, therefore, lodged before this Commission for directing the opposite party to allot a plot of 800 sq. yds. along with compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for physical and mental torture and financial loss. The opposite party, U.P. Housing and Development Board, filed their written statement. It was stated therein that the opposite party allots property to the registered persons which does not come under the deficiency of service, and therefore, the case is not maintainable before this Commission. It was admitted that the complainant had registered himself for a plot in Dehradun in 1973 and the registration number was DN/D-52(3). In the brochure the price of the land was given which was applicable in the year 1973 and the same can be changed according to the rules of the opposite party. It was further stated that on the basis of consent obtained from the complainant, plot No. 878 in Indiranagar Scheme of Dehradun was allotted to him at the rate of Rs. 140/- per sq. yd. The complainant did not make any payment and, therefore, the allotment was cancelled and the registration amount was forfeited which was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the brochure. The complainant is, therefore, not liable to get any relief.

Mr. B.K. Pandey, Law Officer of the opposite party filed his affidavit in support of the written statement. The complainant also filed an affidavit on 27.5.1996 supporting allegations contained in the complaint. Documents in support of their respective pleas were also filed by the parties.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite party did not adhere to the rules made by itself by allotting plot under the defence quota to the defence personnel and it was only after more than 13 years that the plot was allotted to him at eight times the higher price which was indicated in the registration booklet. The complainant should have been allotted plot under the defence quota for which 15% reservation quota had been provided and if the plot had been provided under the reservation quota at the earlier date the price would have been much less and in the process the complainant suffered. The Counsel for the opposite party has argued that consent of the complainant had been taken and on the basis of his consent a plot has been allotted to him in 1986 but since the payment was not made by the complainant the allotment was cancelled. On the date the allotment was cancelled on 3.12.1986 the Consumer Protection Act was not in force and moreover the complaint was made in 1992 after a gap of six years. The limitation of the time was for three years and, therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation by three years. Also it was argued by the learned Counsel that the complainant was not maintainable before the State Commission because of pecuniary jurisdiction and the same should have been tried before the District Forum. A perusal of the evidence goes to show that the complainant had got himself registered for a plot in Dehradun and had deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- as registration charges. Annexure 2 is the statement showing the position of the existing scheme in which it has been stated that approximate per sq. yd. rate of developed plot in the scheme is Rs. 18/-. In 1976 the applicant was informed by the opposite party that since the work on the scheme was still going on, he would be informed at appropriate time (Annexure 4 of the affidavit filed by the complainant). Annexure 6 is a letter issued by the opposite party on 19.12.1985 to the complainant informing him that under the scheme of Indiranagar, Dehradun allotment of plot would be made on 31.1.1986. It was clearly laid down that the approximate cost of 300 sq. mts. plot would be Rs. 125/- per sq. mt. and the plot measuring less than 300 sq. mts. would cost at the rate of Rs. 112/- per sq. mt. The letter dated 3.12.1986 (Annexure 8) from the Estate Management Officer to the complainant clearly indicates that before the allotment the rate of the plot was intimated to him and on the basis of consent obtained from him allotment was made and since further action in regard to payment of cost was not taken up by the complainant the amount of Rs. 200/- as registration charges was forfeited and the allotment stood cancelled. The complainant was informed of this cancellation again on 25.7.1987 (Annexure E of the complaint).

AS to the argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant that the defence quota was not filled up by the opposite party, it will be sufficient to point out that the plot was offered to the complainant, therefore, the grievance that defence quota was not filled does not stand. The allotment is done on the basis of draw of lots and in this draw the reservation rules are adhered to and the complainant was allotted a plot in 1986. In regard to the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the complaint was not maintainable because of pecuniary jurisdiction. We find that the complainant has asked for a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- and also possession of the plot of 800 sq. yds. The pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission, was therefore, definitely there at the relevant time. In regard to the limitation, we agree with the plea of the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the complainant was finally informed of the cancellation of the allotment in 1987. The complaint was filed in 1992 and therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation because the delay of about three years has not been explained nor do we find any valid explanation for delay after 24.7.1987 when the complainant was finally informed that his allotment already stood cancelled and the amount of registration forfeited. The complaint is, therefore, time barred. Even otherwise the case of the complainant could not have deserved any consideration because he was a mere registered person and mere registration does not entitle one the allotment. Registration is a process adopted by the Housing Board to determine the housing needs of people in a particular area and after registrations are completed then only the Housing Board starts process of acquiring the land which after acquisition is developed. This may take a long time also because of the delay in land acquisition process and site development. The rate of plot advertised in 1973 and 1986 cannot be the same and that is why the Board has specifically mentioned the approximate price and not the exact price. The price may escalate because of the compensation to be paid to the growers/land owners. It also escalates because of the cost of construction and development. In normal case if allotment has been made and after taking consent of the registered person and the property so allotted is refused by the registered person, then one-fifth amount deposited by the complainant is forfeited but in this case the complainant had not deposited any amount and had merely deposited an amount of Rs. 200/- as registration charges which ofcourse were to be adjusted against the payment of the cost of the property along with interest. By merely registering for a property one cannot claim the property. In this case the property was allotted and the cost or part of cost was not paid and only the registration amount was forfeited. This provision has been clearly laid down in the regulations made by the U.P. Housing and Development Board for which the opposite party is authorised under the provisions of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.

IN view of the above discussions the opposite party was in no way bound to allot a 800/- sq. yds. plot at the rate of Rs. 18/- per sq. yd. to the complainant in whose favour the registration was made in 1973 and allotment was made in 1986. The complainant is, therefore, not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. Complaint dismissed.