HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJESH KUMAR KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana Urban Development Authority has come up in appeal against the order dated 1st of February, 1995 passed by the learned District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby the complaint of one Rajesh Kumar Khurana arising out of non-delivery of possession of plot allotted to him, has been accepted and HUDA has been directed to expedite the delivery of actual possession and shall pay to the complainant interest @ 15% on the amount deposited by him till the date of actual possession, as has been done in the cases of other allottees, similarly situated. The HUDA had allotted a residential plot No.2685, Sector 23-A (Part II), Gurgaon in favour of the complainant on 11th of August, 1986. The complainant deposited the consideration amount of Rs.40,480/- immediately and 4 years later there was an enhancement in the price of the plot by an additional amount of Rs.39,485/-, which too was deposited by the complainant. Thus, according to the complainant by 28th of May, 1993 the complainant had paid the entire price originally fixed as well as the enhanced including the amount of interest, but possession of the plot was not delivered. Aggrieved against this, he approached District Forum, Gurgaon, before whom the HUDA pleaded that certain litigation was pending with regard to the surrounding area of the plot in dispute allotted to the complainant, the development work could not be undertaken by HUDA. This resulted into the non-development of the plot and non-delivery of possession thereof to the complainant. However, it was assured by HUDA that the possession of the plot would be delivered as soon as the development is completed. We are not satisfied with the plea taken by HUDA and having found that pendency of litigation of the area surrounding to the plot in dispute was no excuse for not undertaking the development work by HUDA, especially when number of other allottees similarly situated had in fact been delivered the possession. On that basis, the complaint has been allowed and the HUDA has been directed to deliver possession of the plot in dispute immediately and to pay to the complainant interest on the amount deposited by him @ 15% till the actual date of possession.

(2.) In appeal before us, learned Counsel for the appellant-HUDA has vehemently contended, that pendency of litigation of surrounding area was a relevant factor, which could not be ignored by HUDA while deciding as to whether development work of the plot in dispute had to be undertaken or not. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, delay in not completing the development work was due to reason, which was beyond the control of the HUDA. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent while refuting the stand taken by the HUDA stated, that number of other allottees, who were similarly situated and were belonging to the same sector, had already got the possession of their respective plots as back as in 1992 whereas the respondent had been singled out. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that uncertainty and inordinate delay could not be permitted to continue and once the allotment had been made in favour of the complainant about a decade back and he had already deposited the entire consideration money as well as enhanced price with interest demanded from him from time to time, there was no reason that HUDA should not have discharged his duty by rendering effective and prompt service by completing the development work expeditiously. It is not the case of HUDA that development work on the plot in dispute or in the surrounding areas has been stayed by any Court of Law, especially when it is a matter of record that number of other allottees in the same sector had already got possession. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum, Gurgaon and we dismiss the appeal.

(3.) So far as the rate of interest and the date from which the same has to start accruing, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that it was highly exorbitant and the same should not have been awarded from the date of deposit of the principal amount. We do not agree with the learned Counsel, as this very rate of interest, which has generally been awarded and has been approved in number of decisions by the Hon'ble National Commission as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, is being uniformly awarded in all similar cases. So far as the period from which the interest has to be paid, the HUDA has been directed to pay the same to the complainant only with effect from the date the possession of the plots was delivered to other allottees in the same sector. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.