SATINDER MOHAN BOGRA Vs. HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Complaint has been filed challenging some demand raised way back in the year 2017 which amounts to 19,21,300/- only. From the perusal of file, it is apparent that the Complainant is already in possession of the subject plot and the sale deed in his favour was also executed in 2013. This matter relates only to the amount of about 19,21,300/- only. This Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction and also the present Complaint is time barred.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Complainant relying on the findings of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 - Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. dated 7.10.2016 has argued that this Commission in the said case has clearly held that the value of the property and compensation claimed determine the pecuniary jurisdiction. It is submitted that therefore, it is the cost of the plot which shall determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is also argued that the Complaint is also not time barred since the payments were made by the Complainant vide receipts in December 2017 and January 2018 of the payments raised by the Opposite Party.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a semi built-up residential house covering area 44.94 sq. mtrs. i.e. 483.55 sq. ft. bearing No.854, Sector 11 Panchkula (Haryana) constructed upon 10 marlas plot from Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh vide registered sale deed on 12.12.2013 for a consideration of 1.75 Crores. This property was allotted to Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh on 02.09.2003 by HUDA and the Possession Certificate was issued by HUDA in their favour. The Complainant had deposited a sum of 40,000/- on 11.11.2013, a sum of 37,700/- on 12.11.2013, and 15,05,600/- on 21.11.2013 on behalf of Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh, the previous allottees. He also deposited 5,000/- on 13.11.2013 as administration fee on behalf of Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh and on such payment, the transfer permission letter dated 28.11.2013 in favour of Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh to transfer the property in the name of the Complainant was issued. It is submitted that in this transfer certificate, it was clearly mentioned that there was no dues qua this property. The Occupation Certificate was also issued in favour of the Complainant by the HUDA. Thereafter, the allottees, i.e., Kesar Singh and Baljeet Singh executed the sale deed in favour of the Complainant. Thereafter, reallotment letter was issued in favour of the Complainant on 23.12.2013 on the basis of the sale deed. The Complainant applied for sanction of the revised building plan. Instead of sanctioning the revised building plan, an illegal and unjustified payment of 18,62,205.72ps. upto 25.05.2017 was raised by HUDA. It is this payment which the Complainant is challenged before me. This payment was raised for the first time wayback in May 2017. The cause of action qua this payment therefore arose on that day. The payments made by the Complainant to meet the demand does not given rise to a fresh cause of action. Since the present Complaint has not been filed within two years from that day, the Complaint is barred by limitation.