HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short 'HUDA') has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 07.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Hisar and in terms of which an application moved by respondent No.2 herein under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been partly allowed and respondent No.2 has been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,76,370/- along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 07.12.2018. Counsel for the petitioner/HUDA would submit that respondent No.2 had submitted an application for allotment of an industrial plot in Sectors 27-28, Hisar on 05.02.2005. Industrial plot No.166 was allotted vide allotment letter dated 31.03.2006. The total allotment price of the plot was Rs.33,35,562/- and the allottee having not opted for the lump sum payment mode was liable to pay the same in five annual half yearly installments. It is further urged that the allottee was required to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,333.50 within a period of 30 days of the issue of the allotment letter to make good 25% of the total amount of the plot and the balance was to be paid as per installments schedule. It is contended that a mistake occurred in the office of the concerned HUDA authorities inasmuch as the allottee was given a credit twice over towards an amount of Rs.5,00,333.50. Such mistake having been detected, HUDA authorities issued a letter dated 14.07.2016 informing the allottee that a sum of Rs.13,95,700/- is due. Thereafter, a second communication dated 22.08.2016 was also issued informing the allottee that the sum due is now Rs.14,08,100/-.

(2.) It has been argued that the allottee had not paid the first installment which was due on 30.09.2006 and as such he is liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment. Another limb of the argument raised is that since the allottee did not adhere to the installments schedule and of which he was aware, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have partly allowed the application moved by the allottee so as to scale the amount down to Rs.6,76,370/-. It is vehemently contended that against a total allotment price of Rs.33,35,562/-, the allottee had deposited only Rs.30,65,642/- and since the allottee is bound by the conditions contained in the allotment letter, he was liable to pay the outstanding amount along with interest over the period in question i.e. the first installment having not been deposited on 30.09.2006 and the allottee having been informed vide letter dated 14.07.2016 that such outstanding sum is now Rs.13,95,700/- including interest component. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and having perused the case paper book, this Court is of the considered view that no intervention in the matter is warranted.

(3.) Counsel does not dispute that the conveyance deed of the industrial plot in question had been executed in favour of the allottee on 13.10.2010. Even occupation certificate was issued on 12.10.2012. Prior thereto, HUDA had even issued an NOC vide letter dated 03.03.2011 adduced on record before the Permanent Lok Adalat as Ex.P15. It has further been conceded that against the installment of Rs.5,00,333.50 which was stated to have not been deposited when the same was due in the year 2006, it is only after one decade i.e. on 14.07.2016 that the allottee was informed that the amount now due is Rs.13,95,700/- including interest component. The justification sought to be put forth is that such mistake came to be detected only when the records of the concerned HUDA office were computerized. Such a stand in the considered view of this Court cannot be countenanced. HUDA authorities which is a State instrumentality is duty bound to carry out periodical audits of their accounts and if any amount is outstanding against the allottee, the same should be brought to the notice of the allottee concerned without any delay. In the facts of the present case, the conveyance deed stands executed, NOC issued and even occupation certificate granted. At each of these stages, a procedure of verifying the accounts and any outstanding money against the allottee could have been carried out. Rather HUDA was duty bound to carry out such exercise. It chose not to do so. Having woken up after a period of 10 years, the State instrumentality is wanting to saddle the allottee with a massive interest component and thereby demanding a sum of almost Rs.15 lakhs against an installment of Rs.5 lakhs approximately that was stated to be due in the year 2006. The same cannot be permitted to be done.