HUDA Vs. AJIT SINGH & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Krishan Lal being the highest bidder in an open auction was allotted site No. 17, Sector 13, Karnal and was also offered possession sometimes in the year 1983. Subsequently, on a move made by the allottee, the said site was re -allotted to the respondent/complainant on 29.7.1988 and the possession too was delivered for an area measuring 121 sq. mtrs. However, it came to the notice of the petitioner Authority that the respondents had raised the construction over an area of 5.5 X 25 mtrs. and also covered the vacant land in front of the SCF site as Varanda. A decision was accordingly taken by HUDA to revise the plan of SCF taking into consideration the constructed area of Veranda. The respondents were informed that since there has been increase in the area allotted to the respondent, a demand was raised for Rs. 72,288.25 which was inclusive of Rs. 23,500 being the cost of additional area/land occupied by the respondent and also a sum of Rs. 48,748.25 paise being interest charged thereon. Respondents aggrieved from the demand raised by the petitioner Authority brought the matter before the District Consumer Forum putting a consumer complaint, which, having regard to the pleadings of the parties and also putting reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, set aside the demand of Rs. 72,288.25 on account of cost of increased area of the plot in question and interest thereon, directing the petitioner Authority not to charge the said amount from the respondents/complainants on account of the above said interest. However, the petitioner Authority was authorized to charge only Rs. 23,500 being the actual cost of increased area from the respondent along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of notice i.e. 21.12.1988 till the payment.

(2.) WHEN petitioner - Authority went in appeal before the State Commission, the State Commission both on merit and also for belated filing of appeal, dismissed appeal holding that regard being had to Regulation No. 57 of the HUDA Rules and Regulations, 1978 and also in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Court, the petitioner could not charge interest on cost of additional area from the date of allotment of the plot but it can charge interest from the date of notice only. Since, there has been concurrent finding on merit by both the Fora below holding that the petitioner Authority was authorized to charge interest @ 10% p.a. only from the date of notice on the cost of increased area, we do not find any flaw or infirmity in the impugned order which appears to be well reasoned.

(3.) IN the circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.