HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) Residential Plot No. Resi-108 admeasuring six Maria situated at Mandi Township, Kalanwali, was transferred in favour of the Complainant by the Opposite Party vide Re-allotment Letter No. 584 dated 27.3.1996. The said plot had earlier been allotted in favour of Guljari Lal who had purchased the same from HUDA. The total price of the plot has already been paid to HUDA by the allottee/Complainant. According to the Complainant the possession of the plot was to be offered to the purchaser on completion of development work in the area and providing all basic amenities like, road, streets, water, sewerage, electricity, street-lights etc. However, the Opposite Party not only failed to provide basic amenities, but the possession of the plot was never offered to the Complainant, nor the possession of the plot was handed over to him. It is also alleged that the Opposite Party failed to execute conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant took up the matter with Opposite Party no.3 on 20.6.2006 for delivery of possession as also execution and registration of conveyance deed, but Opposite Party did nothing. According to the Complainant, he suffered a loss of Rs. 2 lacs on account of escalation in the price of construction material. Legal notice was sent after which the complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking delivery of possession after developing the area and providing all basic amenities as also direction to execute and register the conveyance deed of the plot, in question. Besides this, Complainant sought compensation of Rs. 2 lacs on account of escalation in the construction material as also a sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation on account of harassment, hardship and mental tension, pain, agony etc. The Complainant also claimed 18% interest on the price of the plot paid by the Complainant till delivery of possession as well as cost of Rs. 5000/-.

(3.) The Respondents raised a number of preliminary objections. The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that it was wrong to suggest that possession of the alleged plot was to be offered to the purchaser on completion of development work in the area and to provide all basic amenities. As per clause 14 of the Allotment Letter dated 1.8.1971, the Government was not responsible for levelling of uneven sites. It is further urged that possession of the plot, in question was ready at the time of auction, but it is consumer who had not taken possession at the time of allotment. Later the Opposite Party issued Show Cause Notice to the consumer as to why the construction had not been completed within two years from the issue of allotment letter. The allottee Girdhari Lal Sharma had taken the plot on the spot on 12.6.1981 and therefore question of offering possession did not arise. It was also stated that possession of the plot had already been delivered to the allottee Guljari Lal and after the transfer of ownership of the plot, the Complainant is in possession of the plot. Therefore, the case of the Opposite Party is that the possession of the plot had already been delivered to the allottee and the Complainant is in possession of the plot. In paragraph-5 of the written version, it was also stated that basic amenities like roads, electricity water and sewerage had already been provided in the area. The site is fully developed with basic amenities.