Sudershana Devi, Ajay Kumar vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BOTH the above revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The facts germane to the above mentioned revision petitions are as follows. This is an indisputable fact that the petitioners are the re-allottees of Plot Nos. 217/218, Sector-13, Sonepat, measuring 220.50 sq.mts. While Plot No. 217 was initially allotted to Smt.Shobha Jain on 20.09.2001 and thereafter re-alloted to Petitioners (Ajay Kumar and Vijay Kumar) on 07.03.2002, Plot No. 218 was initially allotted to Sh.Virender Rana on 20.09.2001 which was re-allotted in favour of petitioner Smt. Sudershana Devi on 29.04.2003. In the allotment letter, it was unequivocally mentioned that it was a condition that the possession of the plot would be offered on completion of development work in the area. On 27.06.2003, the Haryana Urban Development Authority sent a registered letter to the petitioners/complainants to take the possession of the plot in question by visiting its officer personally. Five installments of the plot were paid and five installments were yet to be paid by the petitioners/complainants to the respondents. The respondents further issued the allotment letter and according to the terms and conditions, HUDA was to recover the installments, with interest @ 15% p.a. on every year, on the remaining amount and the interest was to accrue from the date of the offer of possession.

THE grouse of the complainants is that the condition regarding interest is illegal because at the site, there is no development work and several works are yet to be completed. There is no pukka road which exists from the pukka metal road/main road towards the plot. Again there is no sewerage, water, electricity, etc. at the site. The interest was to be paid after the completion of all development works. The complainants asked the respondents to complete the work and asked for a claim of Rs.10,000/- for great harassment, mental agony, humiliation and financial loss, etc. It was also prayed that respondents be directed not to charge any interest till the completion of the work. The District Forum accepted the complaints. The State Commission, however, dismissed the complaints because of the fact that the complainants are re-allottees of the plots. It placed reliance on HUDA v. Raje Ram, I (2009) CPJ 56 (SC). Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petitions are filed.

COUNSEL for the petitioners invited our attention towards the report made by the Local Commissioner. He gave the following report: - 1. "That Sector-13, HUDA, Sonepat is situated in front of the Civil Hospital, Bahalgarh Road, Sonepat and on the road, the buildings are in existence which are owned and possessed by the several other parties and behind said buildings, I found that there is no strait Pucca Metal Road which leads from Bahalgarh road towards Sector-13 and there is only a Katcha Rasta. There are ditches on the road. 2. That at some places, water pipes of cement were lying and land was dug out and there was no water supply as the water pipes are still to be laid down and the sewer was also not in working condition and there is no developed park and there is no trees in existence. Uptil now, one or two buildings are under construction and all the sector is lying vacant. Hence, in my opinion, all the basic facilities have not been provided by the HUDA department to the complainant at the spot. Report submitted. Sd/- Naresh Kumar Tyagi Advocate/Local Commissioner ".

IN HUDA v. Raje Ram, I (2009) CPJ 56 (SC), it was held as under: - "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-allottment. 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 27.06.2002, 21.03.2000, and 13.09.1999, 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 Vs. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC), Darsh Kumar (supra) and Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, I (2008) SLT 761=II (2007) CPJ 17 (SC), we are of the view that the award of interest was neither warranted nor justified ".

The revision petitions are ill-founded and are, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.