NIRMAL MITTAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As a consequence of success in the draw of lots, the complainant was allotted Plot No.281 measuring 420 sq. mts. for Rs.2,80,140/- by the Haryana Urban Development Authority on 2.3.1991. The price was enhanced and the total sum of Rs.3,20,000/- was deposited by the prescribed date i. e.23.8.1997. Since possession of plot delivered to the complainant, the present complaint has been instituted and the relief claimed is as under : (i) Refund of the amount of Rs.3,20,000/- paid to opposite party-2 as price of the plot. (ii) Interest @ 18% p. a. the very rate opposite party-2 charges from the allottees for delayed payments, amounting-to about Rs.3,00,000/- (subject to actual calculation ). (iii) An amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation against escalation in cost of construction in accordance with the cost inflation index (copy at Annexure C-III ). (iv) An amount of Rs.70,000/- as damages against mental agony and physical harassment. (v) An amount of Rs.10,000/- against litigation cost.

(2.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 wherein it has been averred that the State Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction because the plot is situated at Jagadhri and Head Office of HUDA is situated at Panchkula. Besides this on 24.6.1994 the complainant was offered possession of the plot but she did not come forward for the aforesaid purpose. The other pleas are that the area is fully developed and ready for delivery of possession. The land in dispute did not fall in the area for which litigation remained pending in the High Court. The complainant never visited the office of HUDA to take possession of the plot. She is not entitled to any compensation. Besides this the complaint is barred by time.

(3.) There is a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent that this State Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because the plot in question is situated in Jagadhri in Haryana and there is a separate Commission for Haryana. On behalf of the complainant it has been pointed out that a notification published on 13.1.1997 issued by the Government of Haryana contains a specific mention that HUDA was having its Headquarters at Chandigarh. The respondent could not show any notification or documents rebutting the aforesaid notification of 13.1.1997. Besides this State of Haryana through the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Urban Estates Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, has also been impleaded as a respondent and in all these circumstances the plea of territorial jurisdiction does not have much force in this case.