SATYA PAL MAHENDIRATTA vs H.U.D.A.

THE issue involved in this case falls in a narrow compass. THE complainant who is the Revision Petitioner in this case had deposited earnest money for the plot and got his name registered in HUDA scheme for Sector 45, Gurgaon in 1996-97. THE case of the complainant is as under:

THE complainant had applied for allotment of a plot in Sector 45, Gurgaon on 19.6.1997 vide application No. 131007 and the same along with demand draft No. 492300 dated 19.6.1997 for Rs. 61,842/- was submitted in the authorised bank of the respondent i.e., Bank of Baroda, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002 after fulfilling and completing all the formalities as required by the respondent. THE Bank of Baroda, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002 had forwarded the application of the complainant to HUDA, Gurgaon and remitted the amount on 28.6.1996. In this respect Bank of Baroda, Darya Ganj, Delhi issued a certificate dated 7.4.1998 to the complainant. THE name of the complainant was not included in draw of lots held in the 1st week of Jan., 1998. So complainant visited the office of the respondent and written many letters but no heed was paid to his requests for considering his name in the draw. If the name of the complainant had been included in the lot of draw, he must have been having a plot today. After hearing the parties and going through the documentary evidence, District Forum passed the following order: "The respondent shall allot a plot in sector 45, Urban Estate, Gurgaon to the complainant at the same/original rate of Sector 45 within one month after receipt of this order. It is further ordered that the HUDA shall pay interest on the deposits, if any, made by the complainant, as per HUDA policy after two years from the date of deposits till the date of physical possession delivered to the complainant."

As against this order HUDA went up in an appeal to the State Commission, Haryana. Learned State Commission after considering the submissions of the Counsel of both sides and also perusing the documents placed before them allowed the appeal of HUDA and dismissed the complaint. The reasons given by the State Commission are given below: "If the Bank had admitted that the application was not forwarded, that would have amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the bank and the complainant would have asked for compensation from the Bank. No reliance can be placed on the documents produced by the Counsel for the complainant-respondent at the time of hearing because these documents have not been verified by any employee of the Bank nor any affidavit has been filed, rather copies of the documents have been attested by the Counsel for the respondent himself. It is also pertinent to note that District Forum at no stage had taken pain to verify whether the application along with the draft was forwarded to HUDA. This is a glaring omission on the part of the District Forum. The complainant had also failed to produce evidence by way of affidavit of any employee of the Bank to substantiate his allegation that the application was duly submitted to the HUDA office. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Bank had submitted the application to the HUDA office, it cannot be said with certainty that the complainant would have been successful in the draw of lots especially when there were 23365 applicants in the category of 10 marla plots in Sector 45, Gurgaon and there were only 190 plots available for allotment. It is worthwhile to mention here that the opposite party- HUDA had taken a specific plea before the District Forum that the application of the complainant was not received in their office but the complainant had not filed any replication to controvert the specific plea of the opposite party. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is quashed and the complaint is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs."

AGGRIEVED and dissatisfied by this order, Mr. Satpal Mehendiratta has come up in Revision Petition. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondent was fair enough to say that the Bank of Baroda had received a demand draft from the complainant, which was forwarded to HUDA. They produced a certificate from Bank of Baroda in which it is mentioned that: "It is certified that our Bank was collecting Bank in the HUDA Scheme Sector 45, Gurgaon closed on 21.7.1997 and our Branch have collected 25140 applications along with earnest money of Rs. 1,19,68,44,642/- from our various authorised field branches which also include 1351 applications of Darya Ganj, Delhi Branch amounting to Rs. 6,63,10,437/- (as intimated by Darya Ganj branch Appeal No. 131007 in the name of Satyapal Mehendiratta for Rs. 61,842/- also include). All the original applications were handed over and earnest money have already been cerdited in HUDA Panchkula A/c."

This letter changes the picture completely. From the above letter, it is clear that the complainant has deposited the earnest money and also has submitted an application form for considering his name in the drawal of lots. The dispute is relating to the earnest money and submission of application form. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that they have received the money but they have misplaced the application form. Accordingly, the name of the complainant could not be incorporated in the drawal of the lots at the relevant point of time. However, if the complainant now wishes that HUDA will consider his application for the forthcoming drawal of lots and in the event he becomes successful, a plot will be allotted to him at the original rate. This option was put to the Revision Petitioner''s Counsel, who sought some time to seek instruction from his client. The matter was taken up after an hour or so on the same day when the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that they would only like to take back the amount with interest, compensation and costs.

WE have gone through the record of the case and heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the respondent HUDA at great length. WE consider that this is an unfortunate case where the application of the petitioner was misplaced in the office of HUDA. For no fault of the applicant, the mere fact that his application was not considered for drawal of lots at the relevant point of time, does not automatically entitle him to a plot because the whole thing depends upon his luck. What is possible now, is only inclusion of his name in future drawal of lots. Though this has been agreed to by HUDA but the petitioner does not want to pursue this route. Accordingly, we direct that HUDA will pay Rs. 61,862/- to the complainant/revision petitioner with 10% interest from the date of draw i.e., 7.1.1998 (as it was brought to our notice that draw was held in the first week of January 1998) within the period of next four weeks. In view of the special circumstances of the case, HUDA shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the revision petitioner. Revision Petition disposed of.