S.C. JAIN vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS order shall decide above detailed two revision petitions which entail the same question of the facts and law. Plot No. 1896 situated in Sector 12, Sonepat was originally allotted to one Krishana Rani vide allotment letter dated 3.4.1998, who sold the plot to Sh. S. C. Jain, complainant/petitioner in revision petition No. 789/2012.

LIKEWISE plot No. 1878-P situated in Sector 12, Sonepat was originally allotted to one Kapur Singh vide the allotment letter dated 3.4.1998 which was sold to the second petitioner Smt. Megha Jain D/o Sh. S. C. Jain in revision petition No. 790/2012. Both the plots were transferred in the name of the complainants vide re-allotment letter dated 19.8.1998 and 8.9.1998 respectively. The possession was offered to both the complainants vide letters dated 6.9.2000. In the meantime, the complainants filed separate complaints on 1.2.2005 before the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat with the allegations that the possession of the plots were offered to them without completing the development works and they sought interest on the deposited amount. The District Forum directed HUDA, OP to pay interest at the rate of 9% p. a. on the amount lying deposited with the respondent which they are utilising without providing any services to the complainants and the said interest be paid with effect from period of 2 years from the date of allotment i.e. with effect from 3.4.2000 till the actual physical possession of the plot after making development and after providing the basic amenities around the plot of the complainants was delivered. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,000 each was also granted. Aggrieved by that order, both the petitioners filed respective complaints before the District Forum.

THE appeal was filed before the State Forum by the HUDA. The State Forum accepted the appeal being barred by Section 24A of the Limitation Act and the re-allottee was not entitled to claim compensation on these grounds.

WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioners. The complainants were re-allotted the plot on 8.9.1998 and the possession was offered to them on 6.9.2000, whereas the instant complaint was filed on 1.2.2005 with the allegations that the plot was not developed at the time of offer of the possession. The State Forum has placed reliance on State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 793=JT 2009 (4) SC 191 and V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes, IV (2010) CPJ 27 (SC)=VII (2010) SLT 648=2011 CTJ 1 (SC) (CP). The State Commission has cited authority reported in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Raje Ram, I (2009) CPJ 56 (SC), and given the details which are completely applicable to this case.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the facts of authority of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Raje Ram (supra), are different. It was argued that the intention of law can never be to the effect that a re-allottee can never claim or demand the development in case the authorities failed to do the statutory commitments and offer the possession without fulfilling the commitments at the time of allotment and the development had also been promised in the re-allotment letter. The State Commission could have taken into consideration the fact that the respondents were duty bound to issue the possession letter only after completion of the development work at the spot. The complainants are always ready to get the possession after the development work is complete.

WE clap no significance to these arguments because these cases are fully covered by the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Raje Ram (supra). Paras 6 and 7 run as follows: "6. The decision of National Commission in Darsh Kumar, followed in the impugned orders, did not find favour of this Court in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, III (2004) CPJ 34 (SC)=V (2004) SLT 297=2005 (9) SCC 449. This Court observed that where possession is given at the old rate, the party has got the benefit of escalation in price of land, and therefore, there cannot and should not be award of interest on the amounts paid by the allottee on the ground of delay in allotment. On the special facts of that case, this Court however awarded compensation for harassment/mental agony. 7. Respondents in the three appeals are not the original allottees. They are re-allottees to whom re-allotment was made by the appellant in the years 1994, 1997 and 1996 respectively. They were aware, when the plots were re-allotted to them, that there was delay (either in forming the layout itself or delay in delivering the allotted plot on account of encroachment, etc.). In spite of it, they took re-allotment. Their cases cannot be compared to the cases of original allottees who were made to wait for a decade or more for delivery and thus put to mental agony and harassment. They were aware that time for performance was not stipulated as the essence of the contract and the original allottees had accepted the delay......... "

In the result, the revision petitions are without merit and the same are, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.