HOUSING BOARD HARYANA Vs. ANGREJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of above mentioned six appeals as they have arisen out of the common order dated 5.8.2005 passed by District Forum, Panchkula in complaints bearing Nos.130, 138, 154, 155, 165 and 166 of 2004 separately filed by the complainants.

(2.) Housing Board, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Board) appellant-opposite party gave advertisement in different Newspapers for inviting applications for allotment of Type I category builtup houses located in Baldev Nagar, Housing Board Colony, Ambala City. The plot area was 151.74 square yards. The tentative price fixed in this category of house was Rs.4,55,200. A sum of Rs.45,520 was payable along with the application at the time of the registration with the Board. The closing date for the receipt of the applications was 7.11.2001. The other terms and conditions for the allotment of the houses were printed in the brochure issued by the appellant. It was stated on the first page of the brochure about the description of accommodation and price of houses and the said houses will be allotted on the price stated in the brochure which will be further subject to finalization. The other condition stated therein is that enhanced compensation of the land on which houses will be constructed, as and when granted by arbitration award or by the Court or any other enhancement in the cost of the land on any account shall be payable by the allottees. Complainants Angrej Singh, Dharam Pal Panwar, Meenakshi Kapoor, Sanjiv Gupta, Som Dutt Gupta and Yogesh Arora named in the title of the appeal applied for the allotment of Type - I category tenements in response to the above mentioned advertisement. They were allotted tenement Nos.933, 945, 932, 931, 948 and 951 vide memo Nos.11695, 11760, 11694, 11693, 11710 and 11713 dated 27.11.2003 for the amount of Rs.4,67,300, Rs.4,69,200, Rs.4,67,300, Rs.4,67,300, Rs.4,67,300 and Rs.4,67,300, respectively. Thereafter the opposite party made a demand of Rs.2,73,820, Rs.2,78,611, Rs.2,73,820, Rs.2,73,820, Rs.2,73,820 and Rs.2,73,820 respectively from each of the complainant on account of enhanced compensation of the cost of the land. As the opposite party had insisted for the payment of the enhanced cost of the land before possession of the tenements could be given to them, they made the payments so demanded in lumpsum or in instalments as detailed in the complaints. According to the stand of the complainants, enhanced compensation so demanded was in violation of the terms and conditions published in the brochure as well as regulations of the Board because there has been no award of enhanced compensation by any Court from the date of closing of the application for the allotment of the houses i. e. , 7.11.2001 till the date of allotment of the tenements made to the complainants calling upon the opposite party through legal notice to withdraw the demand so made. But finding no response from them, the complainants invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing separate six complaints seeking direction against the opposite party to withdraw the respective demand illegally made on account of enhanced cost of the land and to refund the amount paid by them under compelling circumstances along with interest @ 18% p. a. from the date of deposit till payment. They also claimed Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000 as litigation expenses in each complaint.

(3.) The complaints were contested by the opposite parties. They raised preliminary objections with regard to the locus standi, limitation, non-maintainability of the complaints and jurisdiction of the District Forum at Panchkula to try the complaints. On merits, they stated that the price of the tenements so offered at the initial stage was a tentative price which had been worked out on rough cost estimate and the same was subject to the revision after the construction of the houses depending upon construction cost, etc. They further justified that enhanced cost of the land has been charged from the complainants as per award given before registration of the houses and as the awarded amount was not included in the tentative cost of the houses, same was demanded from the complainants as per note No.1 of the brochure and Clause 7 of the general conditions. It was further averred that they had right to claim said amount as per Clause 9 of the allotment letter and Clause 2 (W) of the hire purchase tenancy agreement. They also relied upon the undertaking given by the complainants to pay revised cost on account of enhanced compensation at the time of taking possession of the tenements allotted to them. In the re-joinder, the complainants while refuting the stand of the opposite parties reiterated their earlier pleas.