M L AGGARWAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, M.L. Aggarwal was allotted plot No. 124 by the opposite party (OP) Delhi Development Authority (DDA), measuring 90 sq. mtr. in Rohini Residential Scheme, Pocket-2, Block A, Sector 5 vide reference No. F12(812)/83/dt. 29.11.1983. The request made by the complainant for change of sector was allowed by the OP vide their letter 28.01.86 subject to payment of Rs. 2,111/-. As per the complainant, the OP sent a show-cause notice to him on 8.11.1988 for cancellation of the plot on the ground that he had filed a false affidavit in the year 1984, in which he stated that neither he, nor his wife or dependent children held any other plot or flat at Delhi. The OP cancelled the allotment of plot vide their letter dated 06.11.1990. The complainant filed writ petition (C) No. 3458/1993 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, seeking quashing of the order dated 06.11.1990. The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 31.10.2003 and the DDA was directed to hand over possession of flat No. 124, Pocket 2, Block A, Sector -5, Rohini to the complainant within one month from the date of the order and also to execute the conveyance deed within three months in his favour. The OP, however, filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2006. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP DDA filed special leave petition No. 12235/2006 and Civil Appeal No. 4362/2007 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The said SLP and Civil Appeal were dismissed by the Apex Court vide their order dated 26.11.2009. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP to ensure compliance of the order of the high Court dated 31.10.2003. As stated in the complaint, there was protracted correspondence between the complainant and the OP by which the OP asked him to file identification slip. On 31.05.2010, the OP asked the complainant to take over the possession of the plot within 30 days of the issue of the letter. The complainant visited the said plot but found that an electric pole was standing in front of the said plot. He made a request to the OP to remove the said pole so that he could take possession, but the OP again asked him vide letter dated 28.06.2010 to take possession of the plot. As per the complainant, he took over the possession of the flat and the electric pole was also removed subsequently. As per the complainant, the respondent handed over the possession letter to him without mentioning the details of dimension/size of the plot, identification of exact location and the terms/conditions for the use of the land. The complainant further says that the respondent initiated the process of execution of the lease deed after a lapse of 12 months from the date of order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and asked him to file certain documents giving proof of change of address and also depositing penalty of Rs. 1,000/- for taking possession late. As per the version given by the complainant, there was again lot of correspondence between the complainant and the OP regarding the documents concerning the lease deed and raising of certain issues by the complainant. The OP issued a show-cause notice on 17.02.2012, asking the complainant as to why the allotment of the plot should not be cancelled for non-execution of the lease-deed. The complainant sent his reply to the show-cause notice, following which 4 sets of lease-deed form were sent by the OP to him on 09.03.2012. According to the complainant, there were many discrepancies in the said lease deeds and then, there were certain issues regarding the time for completion of construction on the said land. Ultimately, the complainant again approached the High Court of Delhi with contempt petition against the OP. The said petition was disposed of on 22.11.2010 in the absence of the counsel for the complainant. However, the same was restored on 30.01.2012. Ultimately, the conveyance deed is stated to have been executed on 22.10.2012.

(2.) Through this consumer complaint, the complainant has alleged that the OP adopted all ways and means to postpone handing over of possession and execution of lease-deed with the intention to delay the construction of building on the said plot. In the meantime, there was a huge increase in the cost of construction on the said plot and hence, the complainant was subjected to heavy loss. The complainant has given details of such loss and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,25,36,500/- from the OP. He also stated in the prayer clause that the date mentioned in the lease deed should be rectified from 30.06.2010 to 10.05.2013 and a further time of 5 years should be allowed for the construction of the building. The OP should also be directed to carry out certain modifications in the dimensions of the plot.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the issues raised in the complaint. The basic issue that arises for our consideration is whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, which may require providing any compensation to the petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The plot, in question, is stated to have been cancelled by the DDA on the ground that the complainant had filed a false affidavit before them regarding the ownership of any other land by him or his family members. There was litigation between the parties before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following which direction was given to the DDA to provide him the plot in question and to have the conveyance deed executed. From a perusal of the facts on record and the chain of events that took place after the passing of the final order by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the OP took steps to provide him the possession of the plot and also to have the conveyance deed executed. The complainant has himself stated that the possession was offered to him, but he raised an objection that he could not take over the possession till the electric pole standing in front of the plot was removed. The possession was subsequently taken over by him and the electric pole was also removed by the OP DDA. Thereafter, the DDA provided him a set of forms for the lease deed but due to objections raised by the complainant from time to time, there has been delay in the execution of the lease deed. So much so, it is clear that the DDA had to issue a show-cause notice asking the complainant as to why the allotment should not be cancelled for non-execution of the lease-deed on his part. These facts clearly show that there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the OP/DDA as they offered to give possession and also to execute the conveyance deed, but the same could not materialise, due to objections raised by the complainant from time to time.