PRAKASH DHAWAN Vs. ESTATE OFFICER HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal (F. A. No. 477/93) is against the order of the State Commission, Haryana in Complaint Case No. 4 / wherein Smt. Prakash Dhawan who is appellant before us was the complainant and the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal was the opposite party. As the facts of this case are more or less admitted we need not repeat them in detail. The facts in Appeal Nos. 477/93,508/93, 72 & 72A/ being similar and there are common questions of law, this Order will dispose of all these appeals.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that on the basis of an advertisement by Haryana Urban Development Authority, to be referred as HUDA, the appellant herein in FA No. 477/93 and 508/93 applied for the allotment of a plot on 9th January, 1985 in Sector 14(II) in the urban estate of Karnal. She made the total payment, in instalments as required, amounting to Rs. 58,367/- by 6th September, 1991. However, she received a communication from the HUDA in December, 1992 unilaterally advising that the plot No. 589 in Sector 14(II) allotted to Prakash Dhawan, appellant in FA 477/93, cannot be delivered to her because of litigation about the land in which this plot is situated and therefore another plot No. 78-L in an altogether different Sector 8 has been allotted to her as an alternative. Alongwith this communication a demand of Rs. 58,396/- was raised against the complainant on the ground that the enhanced compensation has been worked out at that figure and this amount should be deposited by a demand draft within 30 days failing which interest would be leviable apart from other adverse consequences. The grievance of the complainant is a simple one that for a full seven years she was kept completely in the dark while the HUDA was receiving the instalments quite peacefully and received the entire amount, for the plot allotted, in September, 1991. Not only is she being allotted a plot in a different area but also being burdened to pay an additional price of more than Rs. 58,000/- for a site, which according to her is extremely inferior to the original plot in the sense that it is quite far away from the city of Karnal and would take a long time for its development. She has, therefore, claimed that she should be compensated for the harassment and should not be asked to pay any extra amount for the alternative plot. The contention of HUDA both before the State Commission and before us for raising the additional demand of Rs. 58,396/ is based on Condition No. 9 of the allotment letter. The Condition No. 9 reads as follows :

(3.) The State Commission set aside the demand for additional amount of Rs. 58,396/- made by HUDA for plot No. 78 in Sector 8 and further directed that the same plot be transferred to the appellant against the price of Rs.58,367/- earlier fixed by the HUDA and duly paid by the complainant about 5 years ago. The State Commission also noted that the complainant is more than willing to accept the alternative site without further onerous condition and thereafter did not find any merit in her claim of interest on the amount paid by her nor any substance in the claim for damages etc.