HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, in Appeal No. 826 of 2006 dated 8.8.2006.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Commission had confirmed the order passed by the District Forum, Panipat, directing the petitioner to charge price of plot No. 421-B, Sector 6, HUDA, Panipat at the old rates on which the earlier plot No. 228, Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat was allotted to the respondent. It is submitted that in term of the policy regarding pricing of the alternative plots, when the offer is made in the same sector, the same original price will be made applicable and when the alternative allotment is offered in any other sector, the updated floatation rates of that sector or the rates at which the disputed plot was allotted, whichever is higher, shall be charged from the allottees. In cases where rates of allotment of alternate plot work out to be higher than the original rate of allotment, then interest shall be allowed on the earlier deposit made by the allottee as per existing HUDA policy. The terms and conditions or original allotment shall, however, remain the same.

(3.) A similar question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA v. Vijay Aggarwal, III (2004) CPJ 11 (SC)=IV (2004) SLT 874=(2005) 9 SCC 446. In that case, the Apex Court took the view that the original plot was allotted bearing No. 19 Sector 12-A, Gurgaon in the year 1986. The alternative plot No. 30-P, Sector 9, Gurgaon was offered but a much higher rate was claimed. View taken by the District Forum directing the delivery of an alternative plot at the old rate was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The other point urged was that the claim was made after expiry of period of two years. That was also rightly negatived by the State Commission. In this regard, the learned State Commission mentioned that according to Annexure 10, the petitioner had worked the liability of the complainant as Rs. 1,67,227 after having initially determined the liability of Rs. 1,41,406 as on 18.6.1997. This includes the floating price of the plot along with interest, which they were not legally entitled to do so. In these circumstances, the State Commission rightly held that the cause of action was continuous and the complaint instituted on 16.3.2005 could not be said to be barred by time.