SHARMILA DEVI vs Administrator Huda

THIS order shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals titled Smt. Sharmila Devi v. Administrator, HUDA & Anotherand HUDA v. Smt. Sharmila Devi, which have arisen from common order dated 23.10.2000 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), wherebycomplaint of Smt. SharmilaDevi was accepted and it was ordered that Smt. Sharmila Deviwasnot liable to pay extension fee and further she should be given no due certificate and also possession of the plot in question be handed over to her besides sanctioning the site plan for construction of the building on the plot in question.The Haryana Urban Development Authoritywas given one month time to comply with the order, failing which it was ordered to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited by Smt. Sharmila towards price of the plot.

BRIEFLY stated the facts as culled out from the complaint of Smt. Sharmila Devi are that she was allotted residential plot bearing No. 101 in HUDA Colony, Mandi Dabwaliin the year 1992 vide allotment letter No. 2179 dated 17.8.1992 for a price of Rs. 1,70,000 which was to be paid in instalments as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter.It was next averred that she paid all the dues on 22.1.1998 and thereafter nothing remained due and furtherthrough her special power of attorney/father -in -law Sh. Prem Dass,she applied for no due certificate, for taking possession of the said plot and also for getting site plan sanctioned for the purpose of constructing the house and even deposited Rs. 365, fee for sanctioning the site plan but nothing was done. It was also averred that the Haryana Urban Development Authority failed to deliver thepossession or to give no due certificate or to sanction the site plan.Alleging deficiency in service, she filed complaint and prayed for grant of above mentioned reliefs. She also prayed that she be allowed interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 1,83,408 paid by her from 22.1.1998 till the date of possession and further Rs. 20,000 be allowed as compensation.

THE Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Administrator contested the complaint and filed written reply.It took certain preliminary objections; that the complaint was not maintainable, that HUDA had not been made a party, that the complaint was false and frivolous. On merits, it admitted that whole of the amount of Rs.1,83,408 had been paid on 22.1.98 but stated thatpossession of the plot was offered to her vide memo No. 2131 dated 6.12.1994 and then reminder was issued vide memo No. 2012 dated 6.11.1995 but she failed to take possession of the plot in question.It next stated that letter bearing No. 611 dated 29.3.1996 was written to the complainant Smt. Sharmila Devi to take possession of the plot by paying some amount which was due from her and then another letter was sent to her bearing No. 4411 dated 1.12.1997 to execute deed of conveyance in the prescribed form by providingnon -judicial papers of certain amount but she failed to do so.It stated that the site plan could not have been sanctioned without taking physical possession of the plot in question and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and also produced certain documents on file. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 23.10.2000 accepted the complaint of Smt. Sharmila Devi and ordered to grant her reliefsas stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, Smt. Sharmila Devi complainant as well as Haryana Urban Development Authority through Administratorfiled appeals which are being disposed of through common judgment as common question of law and facts are involved.

WE have heard Mr. O.P. Gupta, Counsel for Smt. Sharmila Devi, Mr. Ajit Shiag, Counsel for HUDA and carefully gone through the file. It is an admitted fact that plot No. 101 in HUDA Colony, Mandi Dabwali was allotted to Smt. Sharmila Devi for Rs.1,70,000 and she deposited whole of the amount which was due, on 22.1.1998. On 22.1.1998, she had applied to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa to grant three reliefs i.e. to hand over possession of the plot in question, to issue no due certificate and further to sanction the site plan.It is stated by HUDA that no due certificate was subsequently given vide memo No. 317 dated 3.2.1998. It is further stated in the written reply thatthe site plan could not be sanctioned as Smt. Sharmila Devi had not taken possession of the plot in question.

NOW the important point is to be seen whether the offer of possession was really made to Smt. Sharmila Devi by the Haryana Urban Development Authority or it was just a trick played to wriggle out from its commitment.The case of HUDA is that vide memo No. 2131 dated 6.12.1994 the complainant Smt. Sharmila Devi was informed that she could take possession of the plot in question by visiting the office personally or through some authorised representative.It had further informed vide memo No. 2012 dated 6.11.1995 that all the development work had been completed in the area where the plot was situated and thereafter the offer of possession had been made to her.This memo was sent in reply to her notice dated 2.10.1995,therefore, admittedly, Smt. Sharmila Devi, complainant had given notice to the Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sirsa dated 2.10.1995 stating that she was ready and willing to take possession of the plot No. 101 and for that purpose, she had contacted the Estate Officer as well as its officials severaltimesandherauthorisedagentSh. Prem Dass also met the Estate Officer twice in the current month but itfailed to deliver the possession and he was orallytold that the possession would be given only when interest is first paid to HUDA.In response to this notice, the Estate Officer wrote letter bearing memo No. 2012 dated 6.11.1995 stating thatall the development work had been completed and she could take possession of the plot by visiting the office on any working day.Then she wrote another letter dated 7.3.1996 stating that she had paid whole of the amount of instalments, so, possession be delivered to her.In response to this letter, the Estate Officer wrote letter bearing No. 66 dated 29.3.1996 pointing out that Rs. 7,672 were due from her as interest and this amount be paid, so that possession could be delivered to her at the spot.Then she wrote another letter and in response to that letter, Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa wrote letter bearing memo No. 4411 dated 1.12.1997 stating that she should get the deed of conveyance executed by providing non -judicial stamp papers at the rate of 15 1/2%.A note was also given that dues be also cleared before getting the conveyance deed executed.So, these letters show that Estate Officer of HUDA, Sirsa put obstacles in the way of complainant Smt. Sharmila Devi in getting physical possession of the plot.Even if some amounts were due from Smt. Sharmila Devi, the same could have been recovered separately, but the office of Estate Officer would not have refused to hand over the physical possession.She even deposited whole of the amount along with interest and other charges on 22.1.98 which were due from her and even the Estate Officer had issued no due certificate vide memo No. 3.2.98. When no due certificate had been issued even then according to stand of HUDA, she was entitled to take physical possession.

THE Haryana Urban Development Authority had not stated in its written reply that after whole of the dues were cleared, then why it had not handed over the possession. In such circumstances, we hold that offer of possession in the year 1994 was mere a paper transaction and in fact HUDA did not intend to give possession and put obstacles in the way of Smt. Sharmila Devi to take possession.Thus, the District Consumer Forum was right in directing the Haryana Urban Development Authority that the extension fee imposed upon the complainant be waived ofand further possession be delivered and site plan be sanctioned.Since, complainant Smt. Sharmila Devi has suffered mental tension and agony and she could not construct her house in time due to negligence of HUDA, so, she is allowed Rs. 5,000 as compensation. Hence, the appeal is partly accepted and besides allowing the reliefs ofas granted by District Consumer Forum, she is further allowed Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental tension and agony. The order of the District Consumer Forum if not complied earlier, be complied within one month, failing which Smt. Sharmila Devi will be entitled to claiminterest @ 12% on the amount deposited by her being price of theplot and also compensation.However, the appeal filed by HUDA is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,100.

COPIES of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal No. 1734/2000 partly allowed. Appeal No. 1759/2000 dismissed.