NAFE SINGH MALIK Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed with a delay of 56 days, for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application, we hereby condone the delay.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum who was allotted a plot in Panipat vide letter dated 16.9.1993. It is the case of the complainant that he paid the entire amount for the plot, but the HUDA failed to complete the road starting from G.T. Road to Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan and further, part of the road which belongs to M/s. Bajaj Textiles. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the HUDA, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum stating that the development work in the area was not complete and HUDA was not entitled to recover interest on the outstanding amount. This was contested by HUDA stating that the development work in the area including road work had been completed and offer of possession has also been handed over to the complainant vide letter dated 21.9.1999. Further, the road work near Radha Swami Satsang Bhavan could not be completed due to the litigation pending in the Court which was brought to the notice of the complainant through a letter dated 10.8.2000. The District Forum issued directions to HUDA to withdraw the memo dated 19.9.2000 demanding Rs. 10,442 towards interest and not to charge future interest and hand over the physical possession of the plot without any encumberance.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the HUDA filed an appeal before the State Commission, wherein the learned Counsel for the HUDA submitted that District Forum had erred in quashing the demand of Rs. 10,442 made from the complainant on account of interest on the over due amount despite the fact that the offer of possession had already been handed over to the complainant which was duly accepted by him without any objection. The State Commission observed that it is the admitted case of the complainant that offer of possession of the plot in question was delivered on 27.1.1999 by HUDA at that time he had no objection regarding the development work in the area. Therefore, non -completion of the road work near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan due to pendency of the litigation before the Court does not disentitle HUDA to recover the interest amount on the outstanding dues from the complainant, as the litigation is beyond the control of HUDA. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In this case the possession was handed over on 27.1.1999. In this connection, we would like to draw inspiration from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd. and Ors., 2006 2 SLT 592, wherein it is held as follows: