HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MANORMA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two Appeal Nos.105 of 1996 Haryana Urban Development Authority V/s. Manorma Rani and 196 of 1996 Manorma Rani V/s. HUDA, as both the appeals are against one and the same order dated 10th January, 1996 passed by learned District Forum, Karnal.

(2.) According to the complainant, plot No.885, Sector 6, Karnal measuring approximate area 207 square metres was allotted to her by HUDA on 21st May, 1982 for a tentative price of Rs.32,706/-. After expiry of 13 long years she approached the District Forum, Karnal alleging that even though she had already paid a sum of Rs.43,890.90 paise, HUDA was still demanding another sum of Rs.2,43,670/- on the ground that the area of the plot allotted to her was in fact 426.37 square yards i. e.356 metres instead of 207 metres already allotted to her. The complainant thereupon surrendered the allotment of the plot and asked HUDA to refund the amount already deposited by her as she being a widow was not in a position to make payment for a bigger plot. In reply, the HUDA pleaded that no doubt initial allotment of the plot was for 207 square metres but it was only a tentative one and the complainant was bound to accept the plot regardless of the actual area found at the spot. It was further pleaded that as the complainant refused to make the additional payment, HUDA had imposed penalty of Rs.22,152/- and adding instalments she was required to deposit Rs.2,43,670 /-. Learned District Forum after examining the matter in detail and considering the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that it was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of HUDA for which the complainant could not be made to pay any additional amount or interest or penalty thereon. Consequently, the complaint was allowed by issuing the following directions: "for this reason we pass the following order: (a) That O/p shall charge interest @ 10% p. a. on the amount of delayed instalments and not beyond it. The interest shall be permissible from the date of offer of possession. (b) O/p shall not charge compound interest on the amount of enhanced compensation. The maximum rate of interest be 15% p. a. as provided under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act as amended upto date. (c) Law authorises to O/p to impose penalty upon a defaulting allottee u/section 17 of HUDA Act. But O/p is not entitled to charge interest on the said amount either simple or compound, as the law does not provide for the same. This amount stands as it is without any increase and O/p can recover it by all means but it cannot burden the allottee with interest on the said amount. "

(3.) It is against this order that the complainant as well as HUDA have come up in appeal. So far as the Appeal No.105 of 1996 filed by HUDA is concerned, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-HUDA is, that once an agreement was entered into by the allottee with HUDA at the time of allotment wherein it was clearly stipulated that the area of the plot was tentative one, the complainant allottee was bound to pay the additional amount by way of price of the additional area of the plot, interest thereon and the penalty for the non-payment of the additional amount and interest in time. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant has stated that the allottee being a widow had applied for a smaller plot which was actually allotted to her about 15 years back and it was with great difficulty that she pooled up her resources to make the payment of Rs.43,890.90 paise instead of tentative price of Rs.32,706 /- as mentioned in the letter of allotment. Therefore, according to the complainant, since she is not in a position to purchase a bigger plot and to construct house thereon due to her financial constraints, HUDA cannot impose the allotment of a bigger plot on her and also to demand additional price, interest thereon as also to impose penalty for its non-payment. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find merit in the plea raised by the complainant allottee and do not agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant HUDA. Merely because in the letter of allotment it was written in a stereo-typed routine manner, that the allotment or the area or price was tentative, the allottee cannot be subjected later on to pay lakhs of rupees against the initial price mentioned in the allotment letter, which was hardly Rs.32,706/-. The allottee having already deposited Rs.43,890.90 paise as against Rs.32,706/- originally quoted in the letter of allotment, she is neither legally or contractually nor morally bound to pay the price of the additional area of the plot, the allotment whereof was never requested by her. Therefore, there being no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum we uphold the same and dismiss the Appeal No.105 of 1996 filed by HUDA.