J S GUPTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) against the order dated 7.7.2004 of dismissal of Complaint No.1011 dated 18.12.2002, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, the appellant-complainant has come up in appeal.

(2.) In order to focus the controversy involved in the present appeal the facts as set out in the complaint need to be noticed briefly. Plot No.608 measuring 500 sq. yards located in Sector-15, Faridabad was allotted to the complainant as per allotment letter No.3491 dated 30.11.1967, on a tentative price of Rs.12,500. In terms of Clause 6 of the allotment letter the possession of the allotted plot was to be delivered to the complainant after deposit of 25% of the tentative sale price. According to the complainant, he had deposited 25% of the tentative sale price of the plot in question on 21.2.1968 with the opposite parties. The grievance of the complainant is that possession of the plot thereafter was not offered or delivered to him till a letter dated 24.11.1997 was addressed to him by the opposite parties whereby he was offered the possession of the plot. The complainant then took the possession of the plot on the same day. Thereafter, the complainant was served with letter bearing Memo No.5399 dated 5.2.2002 whereby he was required to pay Rs.1,99,814 towards the extension fee on account of non-construction over the plot during the period 1967 to 2002. The complainant submitted the detailed reply dated 7.3.2002 whereby the opposite parties were informed that the offer of possession was given on 24.11.1997 and for that reason he could not have raised the construction over the plot earlier to that date and on that account he was not liable to pay the construction fee for the period in question. In reply he was further informed as per letter dated 2.4.2002 that he had been offered the possession of the plot in question in the letter of allotment itself. Thereafter, he filed a representation to the Chief Administrator-opposite party No.2 on 12.5.2002 and again on 14.9.2002. On 30.9.2002 he received a letter from the Chief Administrator-opposite party No.2 whereby he was informed that extension fee had rightly been imposed upon him. Forced by these circumstances the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking setting aside the aforesaid demand made by the opposite parties for extension fee and in the alternative sought direction against the opposite parties to accept from him the extension fee only for a period of three years.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that in terms of the allotment letter the complainant could take possession of the plot after making deposit of 25% of the tentative sale price as the possession stood offered from that date to him. Thereafter, it was for him to move to the opposite parties for taking possession of the plot. It was further stated that in pursuance to the letter dated 5.11.1997 received from the complainant, the opposite party No.1 had informed vide letter dated 13.11.1997 that as he had deposited the extension fee in respect of the allotted plot, he could have taken the possession of the same on any working day and thereafter he had applied for taking possession on 15.11.1997 and the possession of the plot was delivered to him on 24.11.1997. They further stated that the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1977), had come in operation and as per HUD A policy which had come into force in the year 1987, the extension fee was chargeable at the prescribed rate from the allottee who had not raised the construction within the period prescribed. Accordingly, it was prayed that the opposite parties were fully justified in issuing a notice bearing Memo No.5399 dated 5.2.2002 requiring the complainant to deposit the extension fee for the delayed period and for that reason the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum accepted the stand of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint as per order dated 7.7.2004. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant.