HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of First Appeal No.113 of 1996 and Revision Petition No.45 of 1996 filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority against the orders dated 15.1.1996 and 25.9.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Ambala, whereby the complaint of Paramjit Singh, an allottee of HUDA, has been allowed, by passing the following order: "in view of the position discussed above, the opposite parties are directed to comply with the following directions within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order; (i) To deliver to the complainant the possession of plot No.55, Jail Land Ambala City, or in the alternative to allot and deliver possession of another plot of the same or bigger size in the same sector at the same rate at which the complainant was originally allotted the plot. (ii) To pay interest on the amount of Rs.1,42,805/- deposited by the original allottee or by the complainant upto 7.8.1992 @ 18% p. a. w. e. f.11.5.1993 (date of filing of suit) till the delivery of the possession of the plot referred to above ). (iii) To pay interest on the amount of Rs.24,750/- deposited by the complainant on 31.3.1994 @ 18% p. a. w. e. f.1.4.1994 (till the delivery of the possession of the plot referred to above ). (iv) To pay Rs.1,000/- by way of compensation for harassment and mental agony. (v) To pay Rs.200/- by way of costs of proceedings".

(2.) The main grievance of the complainant before the learned District Forum was that even though Plot No.55, Jail Land, HUDA had been allotted to him long ago and the plan for building a house thereon had also been submitted by him after making full and final payment of the sale price, yet the necessary permission had not been granted. In these circumstances, the complainant, demanded the refund of the amount of interest charged by HUDA from him on the original price of the plot as they had failed to deliver physical possession of the plot even after six years of allotment. In their reply, the HUDA admitted the factual position but pleaded that due to some encroachment on the plot in question the physical possession could not be delivered to the complainant, as also there was an injunction issued by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ambala City, in Civil Suit No.196 of 1993 Pushpa Rani V/s. HUDA. The learned District Forum, after considering the matter in detail and examining the evidence brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that if the possession of Plot No.55, Jail Land, Ambala City, which had been originally allotted to the complainant, could not be delivered, then some alternative plot of the same area or of bigger size in the same sector should be allotted to him. This was done by issuing the aforesaid directions.

(3.) In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for HUDA has vehemently contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants as the possession could not be delivered to the complainant due to pendency of the civil suit. Moreover, the plot in question had been purchased by the complainant from the original allottee in 1994 and, thus, he was not a consumer of HUDA.