S P ANAND Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order is being passed in respect of the above three cases as the issues involved and the respondent in all the three cases are the same. The main facts giving rise to the issues in this case can be very briefly summarized as below.

(2.) All the three complainants in these cases had applied for residential plots offered by the respondent in different sectors at Gurgaon in the year 1985-86. The respondent had represented that the land was fully developed and the plots were ready for allotment. The terms of allotment envisaged that possession of the plots would be given within a reasonable time and in any case before the full payment was made. The terms also stipulated that after the initial payment of 25 per cent of the cost the balance was payable in six equal yearly installments.

(3.) Shri S. P. Anand, complainant in UTPE 1/ 97 was allotted a plot of land on 11.8.1986 in Sector 23. Shri V. K. Khanna in UTPE 18/97 was allotted a plot of land on 19.5.1986 in Sector 21 and Shri Goverdhan Lal Pahwa was allotted a plot of land on 16.5.1986 in Sector 21. All the three complainants waited to take possession of the plots of land. Even after they had made full payment or near full payment there was no prospect of allotment of land even though others who had applied for the plots of land in the scheme were given possession. This was because the plots allotted to the complainants were involved either in litigation or the respondent was unable to remove unauthorized encroachment. Ultimately in 1996 and 1997 the complainants were offered alternative plots of land. While ultimately Shri S. P. Anand was allotted the same plot of land which was allotted to him originally in Sector 23, Shri V. K. Khanna and Shri Goverdhan Lal Pahwa have been offered alternative plots in Sector 5. It is the policy of the respondent when alternative plots are located in a sector different from the original allotment the complainants have to pay the price for the plot as prevalent on the date of offer of alternative plot. They are, however, paid interest for the amount deposited by them for the original allotment upto the date of payment for the new plot. Where the alternative plot is located in the same sector or when the original plot itself is restored, the price for the plot will be the same as per the original terms and conditions. In that case no interest is paid for the amount deposited originally by them. The main issue in these cases thus centres around the policy of the respondent regarding the price it charges for the alternative plots of land.