KRISHAN LAL Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case stands virtually concluded against the complainant, both on the issues of fact and law, by the earlier detailed order of this Commission in the analogous complaint No.6 of 1991 'ramesh Chand of Panchkula V/s. Chief Administrator HUDA, Manimajra' decided on 21st of January, 1992. Consequently, the facts and the controversy herein deserves notice with relative brevity.

(2.) Mr. Krishan Lal, complainant is the attorney of his five other co-complainants who were partners with him in the purchase of shop-cum-office site No.126 in Sector 5, Panchkula. The auction was held on the 12th of July, 1990. It is the complainant's case that at that time whilst announcing the terms and conditions of the sale, it was made clear that the same shall be subject to the general terms and conditions as contained in the form 'c' of the allotment letter appended to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Disposal of Lands and Building Regulation) 1978 (hereinafter called the Regulation ). This was also because of the mandate of Regulation 6 (2) aforesaid. It is alleged that the completion of all the development works namely roads, electric, sewerage and drinking water lines and parking etc. is the condition precedent which the Estate Officer is to perform before offering possession of the site to the allottees. The complainant's bid being the highest for S. C. O site No.126 was accepted by the Presiding Officer of the auction sale subject to the approval of the Chief Administrator, HUDA and the complainants paid 10% of the bid money amounting to Rs.4,15,500/- on the spot. Subsequently the Estate Officer, HUDA issued the allotment letter Annexure P-2 dated the 21st of November, 1990 in the complainant's favour. It is the complainant's case that this allotment letter varied the material terms and conditions announced at the time of the auction and were also not in identical conformity with form 'cc' prescribed by the Regulation. According to the complainant because of this the allotment letter should be treated as a counter offer made by the Estate Officer and the petitioners as such had every right to judge their financial capacity in the context of the change financial perspective. Consequently, they rejected this alleged counter offer (i. e. the allotment order P-2) and submitted a petition Annexure P-3 dated the 14th December, 1990 to the Estate Officer seeking the refund of the bid money paid by them within a fortnight from the receipt of this petition. However, the Estate Officer vide Annexure P-4 dated the 7th of January, 1991 held that in contravention of the terms and conditions of the allotment order they had failed to make payment of 15% of the cost price (Rs.6,23,250/-) within 30 days from the date thereof and consequently in exercise of the powers under Sec.6 (2) of the regulation, he cancelled the allotment of the site to the complainants and forfeited the deposit of the 10% of bid money made earlier. The complainants thereafter protested against the said action and sought the refund of the bid money on the ground that in some other cases in different sectors such a refund had been allowed. Allegations of unfair practice and arbitrary action have been laid against the HUDA and the relief sought is the refund of the bid money and further compensation for the mental torture and harassment of the complainant.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the HUDA a number of preliminary objections were raised to which reference is unnecessary because they were not pressed before us. On merits the broad factual ground of the complainants having bid for the site and paid the 10% of the bid money is admitted, but in Paragraph 3, it is pointedly submitted that the allotment in favour of the complainants had to be cancelled as per condition No.4 of the allotment order and further it is categorically asserted that the development works in the area had been completed before 12th of July, 1990. Regulation 6 (2) is invoked for the forfeiture of the bid amount and the cancellation of the site. It has been asserted that there is no material change in the terms of the acceptance or in the allotment letter from those announced at the time of the auction. The action of the authorities is strenuously defended and it is pointed out in Para 11 of the written statement that the allottees of the site mentioned in the corresponding para of complaint had duly filed appeals before the Chief Administrator HUDA as provided under the Act who had passed the order to refund the amount on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which are irrelevant in the case of the complainants.