PREM CHAND KAUSHAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to focus the controversy involved in the present complaint the facts stated in the complaint have to be noticed in brief. In the year 1972 the opposite parties advertised Industrial Plot by floating Industrial Estate, in Panchkula. In response thereto the complainant applied for the industrial plot with the opposite parties. Thereafter he was allotted plot No. 179, Industrial Area, Urban Estate, Panchkula as per allotment letter bearing memo No. 16953/I.P.284/1 Acre E.O. (P)-74/21619 dated 5.8.1974 on a tentative price of Rs. 18,150. Acceptance of the allotment was to be conveyed by the complainant within 30 days of the issue of the said letter on payment of 10% of the tentative price amounting to Rs. 1815 so as to constitute 25% of the total sale consideration price of the plot. In the event of failure of the complainant, the allotment was to be taken as cancelled and the earnest money forfeited. It was also stated that the possession of the site was to be delivered on demand after payment of 25% of the total price. The payment schedule of the instalments is also detailed in para No. 6 of the allotment letter. It is the case of the complainant that he had deposited all the instalments in time. In all he paid the total amount of Rs. 36,334, the details of which have been specifically mentioned in para No. 4 of the complaint. Thereafter, in the year 1981 the opposite parties demanded Rs. 9,332.35 in respect of the enhanced land price. Thereafter, another demand of Rs. 2,700 was made towards the enhanced price of the land compensation, which he deposited in Aug., 1974. Thereafter, he had made payment of the instalments amount in due course of time and total amount of Rs. 1,07,399 had been paid by the complainant as detailed in para No. 4 of the complaint. The grievance of the complainant is that despite the deposit of 20% of the tentative sale price of the plot, the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the allotted plot to him despite repeated requests made to them in this regard. It was further stated by the complainant that the opposite parties had sanctioned the plan of the plot as per letter dated 31.12.1980. According to him, in the year 1981 there was no basic amenities provided in the area where the plot in question is located. Despite that he received a notice under Sec. 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1977), on 6.8.1980 to show cause as to why the allotted plot should not be resumed as the complainant failed to accept the same within the stipulated period. The complainant in reply informed the opposite parties that as they had failed to deliver the possession of the plot to him, he was not in a position to carry out the construction over the plot. Thereafter, he received another notice under Sec. 17(4) of the Act, 1977, as explanation furnished by him was not found to be satisfactory. The complainant was given another opportunity of hearing on 16.1.1981. The complainant also received a notice dated 7.1.1981, the copy of which is Annexure C-3. On 16.1.1981 the complainant appeared before the opposite party No. 2. In the meanwhile, the opposite party No. 2 in order to save his skin issued a letter of possession on 16.1.1981 and thereafter the complainant obtained the possession of the said plot. The complainant has not specified the date when he had taken the possession of the plot in para No. 8 of the complaint. In terms of the allotment letter, the complainant was required to carry out the construction over the plot within three years of the delivery of possession. The complainant had approached the financial institution for obtaining financial facility but that could not mature because the amenities had not been provided in the area where the plot is located. The complainant approached the opposite parties as per letter dated 17.12.1982 in this regard, copy of which is Annexure C-4. It has also been stated in the complaint that the possession of the plot has been given to the complainant without providing basic amenities like water, sewerage and electrification. In the year 1985 the complainant received another letter issued under Sec. 17(4) of the Act, 1977 issued by the opposite party No. 2 threatening to resume the allotted plot of the complainant. In pursuance of the notice Ex. C-5 the complainant put up in appearance for personal hearing on 12.12.1985 before the opposite party No. 2 and explained the position to him. The complainant also averred in the complaint that he has completed the boundary wall of the plot as well as the wall located between the plot Nos. 79 and 80 upto the roof level and also completed one room. In all he made total investment of Rs. 75,000 on the said construction. He could not raise further construction due to non-availability of the power connection, water and sewerage facilities. He had explained this position in his letter dated 4.1.1986 Ex. C-4 addressed to the opposite party No. 2. He was granted extension for two years by the opposite party No. 2 for raising construction by the opposite parties but he could not raise construction because the opposite parties failed to provide the above stated basic amenities. It is further case of the complainant that he had raised loan from the financial institution like Banks and Haryana Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as H.F.C.) and the requisite permission for installation of the industrial unit was required to be taken from the opposite parties. The complainant approached as per letters dated 27.1.1986 and 14.8.1986 to the opposite party No. 2 for necessary permission required for obtaining loan facility but the matter was kept pending and accordingly permission was granted vide letter dated 10.12.1986 by the opposite party No. 2. The complainant thereafter approached the H.F.C. and the loan was accordingly sanctioned. As per assertion of the complainant, he could not raise construction because of the non-availability of the basic amenities. The opposite parties had issued the notice under Sec. 17(4) of the Act, 1977. The complainant had also approached the Department of Industries Haryana Government and other authorities detailed in Para No. 14 of the complaint, in respect of the non-providing of the basic amenities which has stopped the construction in the industrial area but no action was taken by the authorities in respect of his representation filed. He had also written letter dated 15.4.1991 to the opposite parties in this regard. In token he received a notice under Sec. 17(3) of the Act, 1977 on 23.8.1994. He submitted a detailed reply on 6.9.1994 causing undue harassment and humiliation to him. Thereafter, another notice under Sec. 17(4) of the Act, 1977 was received by him on 28.8.1996 issued by the opposite party No. 2. The complainant appeared before the opposite party No. 2 on 23.9.1996 and 27.9.1996, 14.10.1996 and 22.10.1996 but no hearing took place on these days as the opposite party No. 2 was not available in his office. On 22.10.1996 the complainant submitted his application to the opposite party No. 2 with regard to harassment faced by him. On 27.10.1996 the opposite party No. 2 directed the complainant to complete the construction work over the allotted plot. The complainant has maintained that he had raised the construction upto plinth level even without electricity, sewerage and water after investing Rs. 5,75,000. The opposite parties had re-validated the building the plan of the complainant. At the same time notice dated 7.11.1996 Annexure C-4 was issued to him requiring him to pay Rs. 1,05,000 as extension fee. The complainant deposited the amount in the hope that necessary amenities would be provided to him. Thereafter, the complainant got the plan of the proposed project re-framed and submitted to the opposite parties. The opposite parties approved the fresh building plan on 6.1.1997 as per letter bearing memo No. 95 dated 6.1.1997 Annexure C-16. The water connection was provided to him on 20.11.1996 vide Annexure C-17. On 3.12.1996 the opposite party No. 2 issued a notice under Sec. 17(4) of the Act, 1997 with regard to resumption of the plot. After approval of the fresh building plan, the complainant started construction and completed 25% of the construction on the plot. He approached the opposite party No. 2 for issuance of the occupation certificate as per letter dated 31.3.1997, copy of which is Annexure C-9 but no action was taken by the opposite parties on his request. Thereafter he approached again the opposite parties for issuance of the partial completion certificate and occupation certificate as he had completed 30% of the construction on the said plot with RCC roof and cement and concrete flooring and other formalities. The opposite parties refused to issue completion certificate and called upon the complainant if he was willing to compound the violation as detailed in Para No. 22 of the complaint in order to rectify the same. According to the complainant, in fact no such violation as mentioned in letter Annexure C-21 was committed by him but still he intimated vide letter dated 6.1.1997 to the opposite party No. 2 with regard to his willingness to pay the demanded compounding fee and further requested him to issue partial completion certificate. He also submitted representation dated 18.1.1998 Annexure C-23 in this regard. It was followed by other detail representations dated 8.7.1998 and 4.3.1999 but no action was taken by the opposite party No. 2. To the surprise of the complainant, instead of the issuing the occupation certificate he received a notice dated 18.9.1999 issued under Sec. 17(3) of the Act, 1977 in respect of the resumption of the plot. He again submitted a reply dated 22.10.1999 to the said notice, copy of which is Annexure C-25. The complainant again approached to the opposite party No. 2 by filing representation dated 7.4.2001, 16.5.2001 and 6.12.2001. He also got two telephone connections installed in his building which remained in operation upto Feb., 1999, but as the opposite parties failed to provide basic amenities in the area where the plot is located, he got the telephone connection disconnected. On the basis of these premises, the complainant claimed that he has suffered huge loss in the operation of the unit as the cost of machinery has increased manifold during this period. Accordingly, he sought direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs. 19,28,000 as compensation on account of damages and also on account of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The details of the claim is made as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_8_CPJ2_2008_1.html</FRM> In addition he sought direction against the opposite parties to pay interest @ 18% per annum of the said amount.

(2.) The complaint has been contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it has been pleaded that all the amenities for the construction of the building in respect of the plot of the complainant have been provided and it is for that reason the possession of the plot was offered to him on 5.8.1974 in terms of the Clause 5 of the allotment letter. It is further stated that the complainant failed to construct the building within the stipulated period of three years as required under Clause 10 of the allotment letter. According to them the building plan was sanctioned on 31.12.1980. It is further stated that number of allottees of the Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula have already completed construction and occupation certificate Ex. R-1 had been issued in respect of the plot No. 156, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula Annexure R-1. It has further been averred that the complainant had only raised construction on some portion of the plot and they had been following the existing policy and guidelines issued by the Higher Authorities from time-to-time issued under the Act, 1977 in this regard. They further stated that the complainant had not paid the instalments as per schedule. They also explained that mortgage permission was granted in favour of the complainant vide letter dated 10.12.1986 in response to the letter dated 27.11.1986 received from the complainant and earlier to that this permission was not granted because the complainant had failed to pay the outstanding dues upto 27.11.1986. It is further stated that the basic amenities had been provided in the area where the plot is located and it is for that reason the complainant got sanctioned the plan on 31.12.1980 and thereafter got it re-validated on 17.10.1996 after deposit of extension fee of Rs. 1,05,000. Regarding the prayer made by the complainant for issuance of the partial occupation certificate on 1.4.1997, it is stated that the building was incomplete in terms of the rules and regulations of the opposite parties due to non-completion of flooring and other work and for that reason occupation certificate could not be issued for which he was intimated on 22.4.1997. It is on 23.5.1997 the complainant had informed the opposite parties that he had completed 30% construction after inspection notice of violation committed, was issued to the complainant on 13.6.1997. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 on 7.11.1997 for issuance of the occupation certificate but he was informed that as he had not completed 50% of the construction on 6.5.1997 under the New Industrial Policy, the occupation certificate could not be issued to him. Accordingly it is prayed that the complainant merited dismissal.

(3.) In support of their respective stands, both the parties have led evidence. From the side of the complainant affidavit of Shri Prem Chand Kaushal-complainant has been filed along with other documents consisting of Annexures C-1 to C-25. From the side of the opposite parties affidavit of Shri S.P. Arora, Estate Officer, Panchkula has been placed on record.