HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ROSHAN LAL CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant. Complainant was allotted a plot of land in open auction in the year 1972. However, it was found that the plot was occupied by unauthorised persons and possession, therefore, could not be delivered to the complainant by the petitioner an Authority constituted under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act. Complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the petitioner-opposite party for delivering him vacant possession of the plot in question. There is no dispute that at one stage plot was in occupation of unauthorised occupants. However, on being noticed it was the stand taken by the petitioner that there was no encroachment on the plot and that the possession of the plot was handed over to the complainant on 1.5.1985 and it was for the complainant to raise construction within two years of his getting the possession. District Forum on inspection of the record found that the stand taken by the petitioner was not correct and that possession of the plot could not have been given to the complainant as it was still in occupation of unauthorised occupants. It was only in 1996 that plot was got rid of the unauthorised occupants and possession given to the complainant. District Forum, therefore, while allowing the complaint directed that a sum of Rs. 1, 20,000/- be paid to the complainant on account of escalation of charges of construction. There could not be any dispute that cost of construction has gone very high after the purchase of the plot by the complainant. District Forum also directed that no amount of extra charges be claimed from the complainant for his not having made construction till 1996. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant on account of mental tension etc. Then the complaint was allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

(2.) Petitioner-opposite party challenged this order in the State Commission which again examined the entire record afresh. It, however, upheld the order of the District Forum with certain modifications and that was that the compensation for escalation was reduced from Rs. 1,20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. Rest of the order passed by the District Forum was allowed to stand.

(3.) In many cases before us following our order in the case of HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, Revision Petition No. 1197/98, decided on 31.8.2001, we have ordered payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the deposits from the date of deposit till possession of the plot was given to the allottee. Since interest had not awarded in the present case, we think the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- would be just and proper. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.