Raj Kumar Bajaj Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

Dr. P.K. Vasudeva, Member:

1. The com-plainant Mr. Raj Kumar Bajaj, s/o Sh. Balraj Bajaj, Block BG - 5, Flat No. 27-D, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110 063 has filed this complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party No. 1 State of Haryana, through Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Urban Estates Deptt., Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh - 160 001 and opposite party No. 2, Haryana Urban Development Authority, through Chief Administrator, HUDA-cum-Director, Town and Country Plg., Sector 18, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160 018 and Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad (Haryana). The complainant, Mr. Raj Kumar Bajaj, had applied for a plot measuring 14 marla (300 sq. mts.) along with the prescribed ernest money amounting to Rs. 34,350/- through one of the bankers of the opposite party No. 1 at Chandigarh in response to the advertisement given by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (For short hereinafter referred to HUDA) opposite party No. 2 in Sector 45 of the Urban Estate, Faridabad during 1992. On becoming successful in the draw of lots held by HUDA, the complainant Sh. Raj Kumar was allotted Plot No. 314 in Sector 45, Faridabad at a tentative price of Rs. 3,43,500/- @ Rs. 1,145/- per sq. mtr. vide Memo No. 205 dated 18.8.1992 (copy annexed as Annexure C-1). The complainant made full payment of Rs. 3,47,500/- but the physical possession of the plot was not offered to the complainant till 30.12.1999. It has been alleged in the complaint that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. This deficiency in service continued for over 7 long years from 1992 till the end of 1999, i.e. upto 30.12.1999. In para 5 of the complaint it has been averred that the opposite party No. 2 confessed after six years of making the allotment vide Memo No. 636 dated 27.5.1998 that “this office could not deliver the possession at site due to some litigation/Court stay/encroachment etc. Now HUDA has decided to give an alternative plot in lieu of your disputed plot through draw of lots which is going to be held on 30th June, 1998 in this office”. Eventually an alternative Plot No. 282 in Sector 45 at Faridabad was allotted and its possession offered to the complainant vide Memo No. 5652 dated 30.12.1999, copy annexed as Annexure C-2. It has been alleged by the complainant that during the period of 7 years from 1992 to 1999 the complainant wrote dozens of letters for getting the physical possession of the plot so that he could raise construction thereon for building but all was in vain. His visits to opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 did not fructify but only led to tremendous harassment and mental agony to him and to his family members. The complainant, therefore, has prayed that interest @ 18% p.a. when the physical possession was offered on the amount of Rs. 3,47,185/- deposited by the complainant from 1992 to 1998 which remained with the opposite party No. 2, and amount of Rs. 7 lakh as compensation against escalation in the costs of construction, Rs. 1 lakh as damages against mental agony, and Rs. 11,000/- against litigation expenses, be allowed.

2. In reply the opposite party No. 2 has raised preliminary objection saying that the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain and try the present petition is barred under Section 50 of the HUDA Act, 1977. It has further been averred in the para 4 of the reply that since the plot in lieu of the originally allotted plot to the complainant has already been given possession to him so the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this core fact. On merits it has been contended that physical possession of the plot in question could not be delivered/offered to the complainant as there was some encroachment by some unscrupulous element. Efforts were made to remove the unauthorized occupant by HUDA but to no effect. The fact of the matter is that a big chunk of land is required through the State of Haryana for planned development of certain Sector and ownership and possession is also transferred but at the time of completion of development work and at the time of offer of possession, in some of the cases, unauthorized encroachment is found and as such possession in such cases could not be offered. It was under these circumstances that the complainant was informed about the allotment of alternate plot in lieu of the plot originally allotted and the complainant had duly sent his consent. After the receipt of the consent of the complainant, a draw of disputed plots was recommended to the Head Office of HUDA and after receipt of the necessary approval, alternative plot was allotted to the complainant. The offer/delivery of possession of the plot originally allotted to the complainant could not be done as it was beyond the control of HUDA. Since unauthorized encroachment was made by some undesired element, so development work also could not be completed. It is thus wrong and vehemently denied that there was any sort of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

3. It has further been averred in para 5 of the reply that since the complainant has been allotted an alternative plot No. 282, Sector 45 i.e. in the same Sector on 30.12.1999 so there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent. Hence, the complaint be dismissed.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, Mr. B.B. Mittal, Advocate and the learned Counsel for the respondents, Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate and we have also perused the evidence and documents on record. We now proceed to examine the rival contentions of the case.

5. The learned Counsel for the complainant, Mr. B.B. Mittal, Advocate, contended that the HUDA should have got the clear holding of the land before it has given advertisement in the newspapers. The complainant has been deprived of Rs. 3 lakh for seven years for which he would have earned interest or utilized it for some other purposes. Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate for the respondents pleaded that there is no deficiency on the part of the HUDA since it was beyond the control of HUDA to get the encroachment evacuated and it took seven years for getting the encroachment removed. She also contended that since the alternative plot had been given in the same Sector i.e., Sector 45 where it was earlier, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of HUDA. Mr. B.B. Mittal, Advocate for the complainant has invited our attention to a judgment passed by the Honble National Commission in Sh. Rajnish Chander Sharda v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, II (1995) CPJ 70 (NC), wherein the Honble National Commission has held as under :

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - “Deficiency in service”-“Housing”-Complainant was allotted a plot - It was discovered that a factory existed on the plot - After 11 years HUDA allotted another plot in place of the earlier one - It was discovered that the said one belonged to a private person - Hence complaint - Whether there is a deficiency in service (Yes).”

6. We are of the considered opinion that the HUDA has been guilty of gross deficiency in service towards the complainant beginning from 1992 to 1999. It is amazing that it made allotment of plots whose actual physical possession could not be given because there was encroachment in the said land. It is surprising that HUDA was unaware of the encroachment at the time of giving advertisement in the newspapers for the said plot. It is clearly amazing that HUDA was unaware about the owners of the land, who had challenged the acquisition proceedings for their safeguards in the Civil Court. We are satisfied from the manner in which the complainant has presented his case in writing as well as in person before the Commission and keeping in view the conduct of the opposite party-HUDA, the complainant has been dealt with harshly and has been humiliated by HUDA when he approached it for implementation of its assurance for the allotment. Resultantly, we find that HUDA has been guilty not only of deficiency in service but also of atrocious and callous behaviour towards the complainant. We, therefore, allow 18% interest on the deposited amount of Rs. 3,47,185/- from 18.8.1992 to 30.12.1999. We allow Rs. 50,000/- as escalation costs due to mis-management of HUDA and Rs. 10,000/- as costs towards litigation.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.