LAWS(NCD)-2007-9-30

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAKESH SOOD

Decided On September 06, 2007
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
RAKESH SOOD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28. 1. 2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent/complainant direction has been given to the appellants/opposite parties to restore original plot No. 284-P located in Sector 45 within one month and its possession be delievered to the complainant. It was further directed that in case the said plot is not available, in that event any other plot out of Plot Nos. 280 to 292 and 476 to 490 located in Sector 45, Urban Estate, Gurgaon or in Sectors 31-32a or in the sector of the choice of the complainant be allotted to him. The opposite parties were further directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the deposits from the dates of deposits till delivery of physical possession of the plot at the site and the balance amount be received without any surcharge or penalty. The order of resumption of the plot in question was also quashed.

(2.) PUT shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that plot No. 284-P measuring 1. 5 Kanal located in Sector 45, Gurgaon was allotted to the complainant as per letter bearing memo No. 430 dated 24. 2. 1998 on a tentative price of Rs. 29,83,783. According to the complainant he has paid 50% of the tentative price of the plot. Later on he found that no development works have been carried by the opposite parties in the area where the plot of the complainant was located and the basic amenities have not been provided. Complainant made a request to the opposite parties in this regard, but without any effect. Due to financial constraints and the circumstances beyond his control, the complainant could not make the payment of the instalment amount fixed in the allotment letter. The opposite parties as per letter No. 1798 dated 9. 3. 1999 demanded enhanced price on account of the land compensation amounting to Rs. 8,15,455 from the complainant. The complainant again approached the opposite parties with a request to provide the basic amenities in the area where the plot in question is located. He was assured at that time that necessary developments would be completed within a period of 6 months and the actual possession of the plot would be delivered to him. Thereafter, to the shock and dismay of the complainant, he received a notice bearing No. 3663 dated 10. 5. 2002, whereby plot in question has been resumed by the opposite parties on account of non-payment of the instalment amount. Complainant challenged the resumption order dated 10. 5. 2002 being illegal, arbitrary, unjustifiable and unwarranted under the circumstances, because no opportunity was given to him before resuming the plot. It was also stated that other influential persons have only deposited 25% of the tentative price of the plot, but no resumption orders have been passed against them, details of which has been given in para No. 5 of the complaint. Under these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint seeking directions against the opposite parties for restoration of the original plot on the same price, terms and conditions or even on the new price as is fixed by the respondents, to pay interest on the huge amount deposited with the respondents and to adjust the same against the price of the plot besides the 10% illegally forfeited by the opposite parties, not to allot the said plot in question to any other person till the decision of the complaint by passing the interim order in this regard and to pay Rs. 5 lacs as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed several preliminary objections were taken to the effect that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint, complaint being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties and complainant being not a consumer has no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum. On merits it was prayed that after allotment of the plot No. 284-P, located in Sector - 45, Gurgaon was made to the complainant vide memo No. 430 dated 24. 2. 1998 and, thereafter, the offer of the possession was made to the complainant vide letter No. 152 dated 27. 2. 2001. It was specifically denied that any letter has been sent by the complainant complaining about not providing the amenities like road, sewerage, electricity, school, post office, etc. At the same time it was maintained that notice under Section 17 (1) and 17 (2) of the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred as Act) was issued to him vide memo No. 2149 dated 29. 3. 2001 along with the details of the amount payable by him towards the due instalment amounts. Thereafter, another show cause notice bearing No. 3501 dated 23. 4. 2002 was issued to him under Section 17 (4) of the Act. The complainant, then surrendered the plot in question as per his application dated 12. 5. 2002. The plot in question was resumed by the opposite parties vide letter bearing memo No. 3663 dated 10. 5. 2002. Accordingly it was prayed that complaint merited dismissal. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on the record, the District Forum did not accept the version of the opposite parties and while accepting the complaint issued the directions in its order dated 28. 1. 2005 noticed above. It is against order the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel representing the appellant has been heard at length. None has chosen to appear to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent/complainant at the time of arguments.