S.K. LAMBHA vs ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SHRI S.K. Lamba and his wife Smt. Sanyogita Lamba were allotted Plot No. 1217, Sector 21, measuring 209 sq. yds. in Urban Estate, Gurgaon on 14.3.1986. On their complaint the District Forum-II held on 3.11.1998 that interest @ 15% p.a. on enhanced price was not recoverable and the complainant was entitled to refund. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been attempted.

THE allotment letter Annexure C-l dated 14.3.1986 shows that the 10 marla plot was allotted to the appellants at Gurgaon. In Clause 6 of allotment letter it was laid down that each instalment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price @ 10% interest on the remaining amount. It was further laid down that the interest shall accrue from the date of possession. THE complainant allottees gave the details of payments of the instalments as well as interest in para 6 of the complaint. THE Haryana Urban Development Authority did not file any para-wise reply in the Forum and even in a belated affidavit of Shri Inder Pal Bishoni, Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon dated 28.1.1995, the payments made by the complainants have not been controverted. THE complainants have pointed out that on 25.3.1992 when possession was offered to him only a sum of Rs. 3,216/- was outstanding and after adding the enhanced price of Rs. 38,994.40, a sum of Rs. 42,210.40 was recoverable from him. It shall be useful to refer to Clause 10 of the letter of allotment and it is reproduced as under : "10. In case the instalment is not paid by the 10th of the month following the month in which it falls due, or in case the additional price is not paid within time, the Estate Officer shall proceed to take action for imposition of penalty and resumption of plot in accordance with the provision of Section 17 of the Act."

A perusal of this clause shows that if the interest is not paid by 10th of every month the Estate Officer could at the most impose a penalty or resume the plot. However no step in this direction was taken. THE respondent was of course entitled to 10% interest as contained in Clause 6. THE learned Counsel for the respondent could not convince us that how 18% interest could be charged as mentioned in para 4 of the affidavit of Shri Inder Pal Bishnoi. After considering all these aspects we concur with the District Forum that interest was recoverable from the allottee only in accordance with Clause 6. THE Haryana Urban Development Authority has nowhere challenged the sum of Rs. 23,729/- mentioned in the complaint. We hereby hold that aforesaid sum is repayable by Haryana Urban Development Authority to the appellants within two months failing which the appellant shall be entitled to interest thereafter at the rate of 18% p.a. The Cross-appeal No. 37 of 1999 attempted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority has also been heard by condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the interest of justice. At the time the complaint was instituted the Forum had the jurisdiction. Even otherwise the notification dated 13.1.1997 issued by the Government of Haryana contains a specific mention that office of the HUDA is situated in Chandigarh. The plea of territorial jurisdiction attempted by HUDA has no force. Consequently the cross-appeal is hereby dismissed. Order announced.