ASHU BHATIA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed by Ms. Ashu Bhatia through her father and authorized attorney, Dr. S. K. Bhatia against HUDA through the Chief Administrator and the Estate Officer, Gurgaon, seeking issuance of direction to the opposite parties (for short, hereinafter to be referred as O. Ps.), to hand over the possession of Plot No.1055, Sector 31-32a, Gurgaon, which was reallotted to her vide letter of re-allotment and in case the O. Ps. are unable to hand over possession of the said reallotted plot to her, an alternative plot of equal size in the same sectors at the same rate be allotted to her. She has also claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.16,29,365/- with interest, detailed in para 14 of the complaint. Compensation has been claimed for the payment of rent for the accommodation presently occupied by her @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Apart from it, cost of escalation in construction material has also been claimed. A sum of Rs.11,000/- has been claimed as costs of litigation. The aforesaid plot No.1055 in Sector 31-32a, Gurgaon, measuring 220 sq. metres was originally allotted to Lt. Col. D. C. Ohlan (Retd.), a resident of A-17a, DDA Flats, Munerka, New Delhi, for a sale price of Rs.3,02,500/-. This allotment was made vide letter Annexure C-1 which is dated 9.10.1989. The aforesaid allottee, namely, Lt. Col. D. C. Ohlan transferred the said plot to the complainant, Ms. Ashu Bhatia, a resident of 112-A, Pocket, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi and sent intimation about it to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon vide Annexure C-6 which is dated 6.12.1994. Transfer fee of Rs.7,095/- was attached in the shape of a Bank Draft No.328013 dated 20.12.1994. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon issued re-allotment letter, Annexure C-7, dated 31st March, 1995 to the complainant, Ms. Ashu Bhatia, wherein it was mentioned, inter alia, that she will have to abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the instructions/guidelines and rules/regulations as amended from time to time. In the conditions of re-allotment letter (Annexure C-7), after Condition No.19, the following endorsement was made against Condition No.20 : "20. The possession has already been offered and effected w. e. f.30.3.1992. "

(2.) The complainant visited the plot and found that no development work had been undertaken in the area and consequently she wrote to the O. P. No.2, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon on 5.8.1995 that the site was still undeveloped and possession of the plot could not be given to her on this ground. She also mentioned that the endorsement made at Sr. No.20 of the Memo No.1132 dated 31.3.1995, which has been referred to above, was not valid and binding on her. The O. P. No.2 was requested to intimate to the complainant as soon as the development work was completed so as to enable her to take possession of the plot. Thereafter, several reminders were sent by the complainant to the O. Ps. , who however, did not take any action thereon. The complainant being dissatisfied by the attitude adopted by the O. Ps. sent a letter dated 8.4.1999 to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon that if the said plot was still not developed, she may be allotted an alternative plot in the same sector immediately. Apart from this, the complainant discovered in the early part of the year 2000 that the said plot had been encroached upon and a room had been constructed thereon besides a trench dug up and a lot of Malba stored thereon. The size of the plot was considerably reduced and the plot also lost its rectangular shape. This fact was also brought to the notice of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, but no action was taken thereon.

(3.) The complainant was required to make constructions on the plot within 2 years of the handing over of the possession and if the same was not constructed within the time frame then extension of time had to be obtained from the O. Ps. upon payment of extension fees. It was under these facts and circumstances that the complainant applied for extension and reiterated her stand that the plot had not yet been developed and no extension fees should be charged from her. The said prayer was accepted by the O. Ps. and extension of time was allowed without payment of stipulated extension fees.