SOM PRAKASH vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SINCE facts are common and similar question of law is involved in the above noted petitions hence, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

THERE is an application seeking condonation of delay of 21 days in R.P. No. 2338 of 2012. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned and application stand disposed of. Petitioners/complainants in present case are the re-allottees of the plots in question, having got the respective plots transferred in their names from the original owners, vide re-allotment letters issued by the respondent.

CONTROVERSY in these cases is with regard to the non development of the area where plots in question are situated and for which, can respondent charge interest on the instalments from the petitioners and whether petitioners have any right to seek any compensation from the respondents for not developing the plots in question.

SIMILAR issue came up for consideration before the Hon ''ble Apex Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Raje Ram, reported in I (2009) CPJ 56 (SC), in which the court laid down that; "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 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. The appellant offered possession to respondents (re-allottees) and they took possession of the respective plots on 27.6.2002, 21.3.2000, and 13.9.1999 respectively. They approached the District Forum in 1997, within a short period from the dates of re-allotment in their favour. They had not paid the full price when they approached the District Forum. In the circumstances, having regard to the principles laid down by this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh - 2004 (5) SCC 65, Darsh Kumar (supra) and Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank - 2007 (6) SCC 711, we are of the view that the award of interest was neither warranted nor unjustified ".

It is an admitted fact that, petitioners are re-allottees and not the original allottees. Thus, relying upon the decision of the Hon ''ble Apex Court in Raje Ram (supra) and Revision Petition No.1063 of 2012 decided by this Commission on 22.11.2012 in ''Kishan Lal Kalra v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, the above revision petitions are not maintainable. Accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-, each.

PETITIONERS are directed to deposit the respective cost by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within eight weeks, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

LIST for compliance on 15.2.2013. Revision Petitions dismissed.