ESTATE OFFICER HUDA Vs. MADAN LAL DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of three Appeal Nos.1064 of 1996 filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority V/s. Madan Lal Dhingra, 936 of 1996 filed by Madan Lal Dhingra V/s. Haryana Urban Development Authority and 1065 of 1996 filed by HUDA V/s. Anil Kumar Arora against the same order dated 16th September, 1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Karnal as the facts and circumstances of the cases and the parties to the dispute are the same, which arise out of two complaints decided by the learned District Forum by issuing the following directions : "for the abovesaid reasons, we allow the two complaints and order as follows : (I) That in case of Plot No.2028 relating to Shri Arora, Opposite Party shall pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation. Opposite Party shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the amount spent by the complainant for the Local Commissioner and Architect and for litigation. (II) In the case of plot No.2027 of Shri Dhingra we direct that opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- for the expenses of litigation. "

(2.) Two adjoining plot Nos.2028 and 2027 in Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal were allotted by HUDA to the complainants-Anil Kumar Arora and Madan Lal Dhingra respectively. Plot No.2028 was purchased by Mr. A. K. Arora by way of resale on 1st October, 1990 whereas plot No.2027 was allotted to Mr. Dhingra on 6th February, 1992. When the complainant started construction after having the plans approved it was detected that certain cracks developed in the plaster of the walls and the boundary wall had started sinking and ultimately collapsed. With the help of Architect, it was found that there was loose refilled earth, debris and malba etc. which had been used for filling an old well at the spot. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.1,15,000/- for meeting levelling expenses by Mr. Arora and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.60,000/- for the expenses etc. by Mr. Dhingra. In reply, the HUDA pleaded that according to the terms of allotment it was the responsibility of the allottees themselves and there was no deficiency in service on the part of HUDA. Whether the site in question was uneven and there were pits etc. , the learned District Forum in order to ascertain the true position, appointed a Local Commissioner, who in his report dated 12th December, 1995 found that the construction on the two adjoining plots was in fact in a dismantled stage and the cracks were right from the foundation upwards. In addition to that it was also reported by the Local Commissioner that the pieces of pottery were also found below the foundation level. On the basis of the aforesaid material and after going through the evidence produced by the parties on record, the learned District Forum came to the conclusion that there being deficiency in service on the part of HUDA, the complainants were entitled to be compensated by issuing the aforesaid directions.

(3.) In the appeals filed by HUDA, the learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that it was the responsibility of the allottees themselves to see whether the plots allotted to them were in a fit and suitable condition for the purposes of construction of building before construction having been undertaken or not. In nut-shell, it is contended that once the plans were got approved by them and construction had started, at a later stage filling of the pits, if any, and levelling of the floor etc. by putting extra earth were not the responsibility of HUDA. Having heard the learned Counsel we do not find any merit in the same, inasmuch as, the allegations of the complainants as accepted to be correct by the learned District Forum on the basis of the evidence produced before the District Forum are, that the HUDA before allotting the plots should have filled the pits and wells etc. with adequate amount of earth and thorough levelling etc. , it should have been only thereafter that the possession of the plots were delivered to the allottees. This having not been done there was a clear deficiency on the part of HUDA for which the allottees have rightly been compensated. Consequently, both the Appeal Nos.1064 and 1065 of 1996 filed by HUDA are dismissed.