SHAKUNTLA DEVI vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SMT. Shakuntla Devi has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint by alleging deficiency in service against HUDA, in the matter of delivery of vacant physical possession of the plot allotted to her and completing the necessary development projects, as also for compensation by way of interest on the amounts deposited by her, etc.

ACCORDING to the complainant, plot No. 40, measuring 14 Marlas in Sector 8, Urban Estate, Karnal, was allotted to her on 22.4.1986. For more than 5 years HUDA did not deliver the vacant physical possession of the plot to the complainant and it was only in 1992 that symbolic possession of the plot was offered to the complainant. Even thereafter, for another 5 years the possession was still not delivered to the complainant even though the complainant had deposited the whole price of the plot. Feeling aggrieved against this deficiency in service on the part of HUDA, the complainant has approached this Commission claiming interest on the amounts deposited by him and for claiming compensation for the mental harassment and monetary loss, as also on account of escalation in the cost of construction etc., especially when during the last one decade HUDA has failed to complete the development projects which was the condition precedent for starting of construction on the plot. In their reply, HUDA almost admitted the factual position but pleaded that since the plot in question was of a discretionary quota one having been allotted to the complainant in 1987, the allotment was under challenge before the Hon''ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a writ petition filed by one Anil Sabharwal, hence the matter was sub-judice. So far as the completion of development projects is concerned, it has been pleaded that the same have been completed. Therefore, HUDA was not liable to pay any interest on the amounts paid by the complainant. Replication was filed by the complainant in which the allegations made in the complaint have been reiterated and it has also been averred that the plot in question having been allotted prior to 31.10.1989 the allotment of the same stood saved by the decision of Hon''ble the High Court dated 7.5.1997, as upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the objection raised by HUDA was wholly without any merit. Documentary evidence has also been produced by the complainant to illustrate that during this period there has been drastic escalation in the cost of construction and the delay in the delivery of possession has caused considerable monetary loss to the complainant.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the complainant has successfully established the deficiency in service on the part of HUDA in the matter of delivery of vacant physical possession of the plot and in completing the requisite development projects without which the complainant could not start construction, much less the completion thereof. Therefore, we have no hesitation in allowing the complaint and directing HUDA to deliver vacant physical possession of the plot, if not already so done, to the complainant forthwith within one month from the date of receipt of this order and to pay to the complainant interest on the amounts deposited by him at the rate of 12% with effect from 3.4.1989, i.e. after the expiry of reasonable period of two years of the letter of allotment and to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction, etc. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for monetary loss and mental harassment suffered by him during this period. Complainant shall also be entitled to get costs of litigation which are quantified at Rs. two thousand. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the above directions within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order. Complaint allowed with costs.