SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sudhir Kumar was allotted plot No.139, Sector 5, Gurgaon measuring one Kanal vide letter No.132 dated 6.2.1991, Annexure C-l and its price Rs.5,36,064.75 has been deposited by the complainant according to the instalments mentioned in the letter of allotment. However possession of the aforesaid plot was not delivered for more than 6 years. The reasons for non-delivery of possession were pendency of litigation against HUDA, encroachment on the plot/site and non-availability of the plot at site after demarcation as alleged in the complaint. Subsequently on 24.10.1997 an alternative plot No.1819 has been allotted in Sector 45, Gurgaon. The price of this alternative plot has been demanded as Rs.17,58,120/-. The main plea of the complainant is that the alternative plot should be considered as having been allotted on the old price of the plot the possession of which could not be delivered to complainant. The fact that litigation arose in respect of the land pertaining to the old plot has been admitted. The relief claimed in para 9 of the complaint is briefly reproduced as under : (i) The alternative plot at the original / old rate. (ii) Interest @ 18% per annum, the very rate OP-2 changes from the allottees on delayed payments, on the amount deposited till date of delivery of possession of the new plot. (iii) An amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation against escalation in the cost of construction in accordance with the cost inflation index and certificate issued by a Regd. Architect and Valuer of Category-I (copies Annexed C-4 and C-5 ). (iv) An amount of Rs.90,000/- as damages against mental agony and physical harassment. (v) An amount of Rs.10,000/- against Counsel's fee and litigation expenses.

(2.) In a reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been averred that the litigation in respect of plot No.139, Sector 5, Gurgaon with the original owners was beyond the control of the respondents and this was the reason for delay. It has further been averred that the alternative plot No.1819, Sector 45, Gurgaon has been allotted and accepted by the complainant, on the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment containing the price now demanded by the respondent. However, the respondent is willing to adjust a sum of Rs.3,18,214/- the interest accrued on the deposits made by the complainant in respect of plot No.139, Sector 5, Gurgaon.

(3.) We are of the view that the respondents were required to advertise the scheme for Sector 5 only when they possessed physical possession of the land which they proposed to allot in the shape of residential plots to various applicants. The facts that the land in question invited litigation and that the plot itself was not available even at the time of demarcation shows that deficiency is writ large on the respondent monopolists. In such a case complainant cannot be compelled to pay the price which the respondent has now determined for plot No.1819, Sector 45, Gurgaon, which is on the face of it exorbitant qua the complainant an allottee of 6.2.1991. In case of Rakesh Kumar Gosain V/s. HUDA, the Haryana State Commission has held that the price of plot allotted to the complainant in Sector 21, Gurgaon, shall be charged at the original rate of 1986. The learned Counsel for the complainant has also drawn our attention to HUDA V/s. Smt. Promila Verma, Appeal No.78 of 1997, decided by this Commission on 21.8.1997, where the appellant took about 10 years in alotting the alternative plot and plea of the appellant to charge new rate was disallowed. The conclusion is that the complaint mainly succeeds, it is ordered that respondent No.2 shall deliver possession of the alternative plot within two months on the original price deposited by the complainant.