PRAKASH DHAWAN vs ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA

THIS appeal (F. A. No. 477/93) is against the order of the State Commission, Haryana in Complaint Case No. 4 / wherein Smt. Prakash Dhawan who is appellant before us was the complainant and the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal was the opposite party. As the facts of this case are more or less admitted we need not repeat them in detail. The facts in Appeal Nos. 477/93,508/93, 72 & 72A/ being similar and there are common questions of law, this Order will dispose of all these appeals.

BRIEFLY the facts are that on the basis of an advertisement by Haryana Urban Development Authority, to be referred as HUDA, the appellant herein in FA No. 477/93 and 508/93 applied for the allotment of a plot on 9th January, 1985 in Sector 14(II) in the urban estate of Karnal. She made the total payment, in instalments as required, amounting to Rs. 58,367/- by 6th September, 1991. However, she received a communication from the HUDA in December, 1992 unilaterally advising that the plot No. 589 in Sector 14(II) allotted to Prakash Dhawan, appellant in FA 477/93, cannot be delivered to her because of litigation about the land in which this plot is situated and therefore another plot No. 78-L in an altogether different Sector 8 has been allotted to her as an alternative. Alongwith this communication a demand of Rs. 58,396/- was raised against the complainant on the ground that the enhanced compensation has been worked out at that figure and this amount should be deposited by a demand draft within 30 days failing which interest would be leviable apart from other adverse consequences. The grievance of the complainant is a simple one that for a full seven years she was kept completely in the dark while the HUDA was receiving the instalments quite peacefully and received the entire amount, for the plot allotted, in September, 1991. Not only is she being allotted a plot in a different area but also being burdened to pay an additional price of more than Rs. 58,000/- for a site, which according to her is extremely inferior to the original plot in the sense that it is quite far away from the city of Karnal and would take a long time for its development. She has, therefore, claimed that she should be compensated for the harassment and should not be asked to pay any extra amount for the alternative plot. The contention of HUDA both before the State Commission and before us for raising the additional demand of Rs. 58,396/ is based on Condition No. 9 of the allotment letter. The Condition No. 9 reads as follows : "The above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the Competent Authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately, or as determined by the authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within thirty days of its demand."

The State Commission has dealt with this condition in a very lucid manner and has come to the conclusion "that the reading of this condition in the context of Annexure 2 being the allotment letter make it manifest that such enhancement and cost had to pertain to the particular land under Plot No. 589 in Sector 14(11) of the colony at Karnal. It is HUDA''s own case that the said scheme and virtually the said Sector and the relevant plots have been abandoned by it. There is thus no question of any enhancement in the cost of the land there under by any Competent Authority under the Land Acquisition Act. The said condition cannot possibly be said to attach to an altogether different sector which is virtually admitted to be inferior in site and location and that too after seven years. It is more than obvious on the record that the purported reliance on condition No. 9 of the allotment letter in the impugned notice (Annexure 12) is wholly unwarranted and unsupported. Far from making amends to the complainant for non-delivery of the plot for more than 7 years the opposite party has aggressively chosen to make an unilateral alternative allotment coupled with an equally unauthorised additional price for the same." The State Commission set aside the demand for additional amount of Rs. 58,396/- made by HUDA for plot No. 78 in Sector 8 and further directed that the same plot be transferred to the appellant against the price of Rs.58,367/- earlier fixed by the HUDA and duly paid by the complainant about 5 years ago. The State Commission also noted that the complainant is more than willing to accept the alternative site without further onerous condition and thereafter did not find any merit in her claim of interest on the amount paid by her nor any substance in the claim for damages etc.

We have given our very careful consideration to the points made by the learned Counsel for HUDA as regards the justification for the additional price of the alternative site. We have noted that the HUDA has been in possession of the amount of Rs. 58,367/- for as long as a period for 5 years and the appellant has been denied of being in possession of a plot. The interest at the rate of 18% for a period of 5 years will come to almost the same amount as the HUDA is demanding now by way of additional price. We are fully in agreement with the conclusions drawn and direction issued by the State Commission, Haryana in this regard and see no justification to interfere with that. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. HUDA shall pay Rs. 2,000/- by way of costs to the appellant. Appeal dismissed with costs.