Sunila Kundu vs Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A., Panchkula

THIS complaint has been filed by the complainant Sunila Kundu, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent H.U.D.A.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that one Surinder Nehra initially was allotted plot No. 1561 -P in Sector 17, Gurgaon, measuring 1.5 kanal on 21.4.1997. The original allottee sold the plot to the complainant, who made an application for re -allotment which was done, as per H.U.D.A. policy, on 22.2.1990 but the possession of this plot was not given, for which a legal notice was issued as late as on 25.3.1998 and when the delivery of possession of plot was not given, a complaint was filed before us with the 13 prayers, gist of these 13 prayers are as follows : S. N.ParticularAmount1.Escalation in construction cost as per P.W.D. (B&R) rates 44,63,8022.Claim @ 18% compound interest on the amount deposited 5,40,0003.Claim on account of mental and physical harassment 11,00,0004.Litigation expenses 40,0005.Claim on account of loss of earning of rent 25,40,1406.Claim due to escalation in the charges to be paid to the Architect 89,2767.Claim @ 18% compound interest on the development rates charged by the respondent8.Changing the case 5,00,0009.That the benefits of all the above mentioned items may be given to the complainant with 18% compound interest from the date of allotment of letter till the date of possession of the plot. Upon issue of notice, written version has been filed by the opposite parties. The above basic facts are not in dispute except to state that the said plot was cancelled on 30.6.1987 and since the matter went to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and after which the cancellation order was withdrawn on 20.11.1989, subsequent to which the plot was allowed to be transferred in the name of present complainant. It is their case that the possession could not be given because the said plot came under Gurgaon Mahrauli Road and green belt, in view of which alternative plot was offered by a certain date. It is the case of the opposite parties that complainant did not complete the formality so the possession could not be delivered to her.

UNFORTUNATELY , this case has been pending in this Commission for about last nine years and, today on the date of hearing, the ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant stated, and brought on record, the allotment of plot No. 376 -SP in Sector -28 by the opposite party Authority under a minidraw carried out by the Administrator, H.U.D.A., Gurgaon on 21.3.2007, in view of which as per argument advanced by the ld. counsel for the complainant, the only issue remain outstanding is with regard to the ''price'' of this newly allotted plot, and ''compensation'' for which he is entitled in the light of several decisions and judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, especially in the case of ''Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, III (2004) CPJ 12 (SC), decided on 17.3.2004'', as also of this Commission.

LD . counsel for the complainant on instructions and in the presence of the husband of the complainant, categorically stated that if the complainant is offered the plot (alternative) at the same rate at which the original plot is allotted with interest at the rate as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, then he will not press this complaint for the additional compensation. In the light of above, we heard the ld. counsel for both the parties. As per notice dated 12.3.2007 issued by the opposite party H.U.D.A. to the complainant, which leads as under : ''Sub : Allotment of alternate plot against plot No. 1561 -P Sector -17, Gurgaon. The Haryana Urban Development Authority has allotted you a plot No. 1561 -P, Sector 17 measuring 1.5 kanal vide letter No. 675 dated 21.4.1987. The possession of said plot could not be offered delivered due to the following reasons : (4) Pendency of litigation Now it has been decided under the authority of Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A. Panchkula letter No. 5752 dated 15.2.2007 to allot alternate plot in the adjoining Sector 28 out of available plots as no plots are available in the same sector. The rates of alternate plot will be charged as per H.U.D.A. policy. The draw of lots will be held on 21.3.2007 at 3 p.m. in the H.U.D.A. Office Complex, Sector -14, Gurgaon. You are Welcome to participate in the draw of proceeding on the above said date, time and venue.

IT is clear from this that the allotment could not be made on account of ''pendency of litigation''.

IN the light of this direction, under a ''mini -draw'' held on 21.3.2007, the complainant had been allotted a plot number referred to earlier. We need not reproduce the judgment of this Commission and Hon''ble Supreme Court in full, but the law is well -settled that the complainants/consumers shall be entitled to compensation in case the possession is not delivered in time for no fault of the consumers. In this case as per letter of opposite parties produced above it is clear that the possession of the earlier plot could not be given to the complainant on account of pendency of litigation to which she was not a party, hence, in our view, without waiting for almost 15 years, H.U.D.A. should have allotted an alternative plot earlier, which was not done in view of which as per law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case (supra), complainant needs to be compensated. We have held severally that in case of alternative allotment of plot in lieu of earlier allotment, the price which can be charged by the authority will be the original price of that Sector, and since the H.U.D.A. had been enjoining the money deposited by the complainant, thus depriving the complainant use/benefit of this money, the complainant shall be entitled to interest which we fix at 12% p.a. In view of above, the complaint is allowed to the extent that H.U.D.A. while fixing the price for the newly allotted plot No. 376 -SP Sector -28, Gurgaon, shall charge the original rate of the Sector in which alternative plot is now allotted. The complainant shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited from the respective date of deposit till the date of draw, i.e., 21.3.2007.

WE appreciate the candidness of the complainant not to press for other reliefs like cost -escalation and rent etc., which they would be entitled to as per law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court (supra).

KEEPING in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost.