Huda V Kamaljit Kaur

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Wednesday, August 30, 2023

Printed For: YASHASVI 1120202148, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 SCC OnLine NCDRC 13 : [2005] NCDRC 13 : (2005) 3 CPJ 64 (NC)
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi

(BEFORE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT AND AJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER)
Revision Petition No. 1051 of 1999 (from the order dated 7.4.99 in FA No. 1/98 of
the State Commission, Haryana)
H.U.D.A. … Petitioner;
Versus
Smt. Kamaljit Kaur Ahluwalia & Ors. … Respondents.
the State Commission, Haryana)
Smt. Kamaljit Kaur Ahluwalia & Ors. … Petitioners;
Versus
H.U.D.A. … Respondent.
the State Commission, Haryana) and Revision Petition No. 1998 of 1999 (from the
order dated 7.4.99 in FA No. 1/98 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Decided on June 2, 2005
For the HUDA: Mr. Neeraj Singh, Advocate Mr. N.K. Jain, Advocate
For Smt. Kamaljit Kaur: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate
ORDER
M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT:— This case illustrates how officers of the HUDA have acted
negligently in discharge of their duties in not defending the case. Relevant points were
also not highlighted before the District Forum constituted under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. We further reiterate that proceedings before the Consumer Fora
are not adversary litigation but are inquisitorial and hence even if points were not
highlighted by the parties, even then, it was a duty/function of the consumer fora to
appreciate the evidence brought on record and to arrive at a just and proper
conclusion.
FACTS:
Complainant, Smt. Kamaljit Kaur filed CPA No. 625/15th July 1997 in the District
Consumer Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, wherein her main grievance was that HUDA
wrongfully demanded enhanced price of the plot and the same was Rs. 29,225/- and
secondly for the interest charged. It was prayed that HUDA be directed to refund the
excess amount of Rs. 26,134.42p. + Rs. 3057.77p. which was the interest recovered
by HUDA on the instalments. She also prayed that HUDA be directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental and physical torture and harassment caused
to the complainant.
In written version it was pointed out by HUDA that even though the draw of lots
was held on 7.2.1985, allotment letter of the plot could not be issued in favour of the
complainant because Supreme Court has granted stay order with regard to the land in
dispute. Finally, the allotment letter was issued on 27.1.1989 and the possession of
the plot was delivered to her on 25.5.1992.
The District Forum arrived at the conclusion that draw of lots took place in 1985 and
as the possession was offered in April 1992, there was delay of about 7 years in
delivery of possession. The District Forum further arrived at the conclusion that
normally for development activities, it should not take more than 3-4 years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thereafter, without specifying any amount, it vaguely ordered that the HUDA should
not recover interest on the instalments of tentative price till the date of the offer of the
possession. If any amount is paid after the date of the offer of possession, HUDA can
charge interest at the rate permissible under the Rules. HUDA can also charge interest
on the enhanced amount in case it was not paid within a month of the receipt of the
demand notice. Finally, it ordered that HUDA shall pay compensation for the delay in
handing over possession from the date when HUDA had handed over possession to
other plot-holders in Sector in question till the date of payment at the rate of 15%.
Against that order, complainant preferred First Appeal No. 46/1998. That appeal
was summarily dismissed by the State Commission by observing that there was no
material on record for enhancing compensation. That order was passed on 7.4.1999.
Against that order, complainant has preferred this Revision Petition No. 1998/1999.
HUDA has also preferred First Appeal No. 1/1998 against the order passed by the
District Forum. That appeal was dismissed on 7.4.1999 by the State Commission by
observing that award of 15% interest was in conformity with the earlier decision
rendered by the Commission. Against that order, HUDA has preferred Revision Petition
No. 1051/1999.
At the time of admission of the Revision Petitions on 7.10.1999, this Commission
admitted the matter and directed as under:
“There will be no order of stay except that petitioner (HUDA) will pay interest @
12%. The dispute as to payment of balance amount of interest will be decided at
the time of final hearing.”
As the said order was not complied with, summons were issued to the Estate Officer
as well as the Chief Administrator of HUDA on 2.12.2004 with further direction to
HUDA to pay the amount with 12% interest instead of 15% interest as awarded by the
District Forum.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of HUDA submitted that in compliance of the
said order, HUDA, without prejudice to its rights and contention, had paid Rs. 49,223/-
by a cheque dated 8.2.2005.
Learned counsel, who is the husband of the complainant, submitted that the said
amount is paid without giving exact calculation as per the order passed by this
Commission on 4.12.2004.
For this purpose, for finding out exact calculations and also to find out whether the
excess amount was demanded by the HUDA, the matter was repeatedly adjourned.
Submissions:
The learned counsel Mr. Jain, for the HUDA submitted that: (a) the complainant is
not entitled to any compensation for the so-called dealy in delivering the possession of
the plot; (b) the complaint for compensation was time barred as the same was filed in
1997 after taking the possession of the plot on 14.10.1992. The plot in question was
sold by the complainant in the year 2004 and he had got a large amount of more than
Rs. 14.00 lakhs; and (c) complaint was mainly for refund of additional amount of Rs.
26,134/- recovered by the HUDA for the price of the plot which the complainant has
termed as excess amount and the District Forum has not specifically arrived at the
conclusion with regard to this grievance. Enhancement of the price of the plot was
because of the increase in the cost due to land acquisition proceedings. The amount
was paid without any objection by the complainant.
The learned Counsel also submitted that admittedly, during the pendency of the
proceedings the complainant has already disposed of the plot by recovering Rs. 14
lakhs and odd.
Findings:
In our view, from the facts stated above it is apparently clear that in the present
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
case there was no question of directing the HUDA to pay compensation for delay in
handing over possession of the plot, firstly on the ground that possession was
accepted by the complainant without any objection. Secondly complainant has
accepted the possession in 1992 and therefore, complaint after lapse of five years for
the said cause was not maintainable. Thirdly, there was no delay in allotment of the
plot
Admittedly the draw of lots were held on 7.2.1985. Thereafter complainant was
informed by letter dated 15th July, 1986 that in the draw of lots she has been declared
successful for the allotment of plot No. 176-P in Sector 22 Gurgaon. However, the area
of Sector 22 was under litigation before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition Nos. 11016
-27 of 1984 in the case of Ramphas v. State of Haryana and the Supreme Court has
granted stay in this respect. She was specifically informed that allotment letter in her
favour can only be issued as and when the said stay is vacated by the Supreme Court.
It was also clarified that the allotment to be made to the complainant would be
subject to the final orders of the Supreme Court and this would not entitle the
complainant to allotment of plot automatically.
Thereafter, HUDA issued allotment letter dated 27.1.89 with a specific statement
that the tentative price of the plot is Rs. 71,434/- and other following relevant terms:
“5. In case you accept this allotment, please send your acceptance by registered
post along with an amount of Rs. ___within 30 days from the date of issue of this
allotment letter, which together with an amount of Rs. 6,494/- paid by you along
with your application form as earnest money, will constitute 25% of the total
tentative price.
6. The balance amount i.e. Rs. 53,575-50 of the above tentative price of the
plot/building can be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the
date of issue of allotment letter or in 8/6 half yearly/annual instalments. The first
instalment will fall due after the expiry of one year of the date of issue of this letter.
Each instalment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at
10% interest on the remaining amount. The interest shall, however, accrue from the
date of offer of possession.
7. The possession of the site will be offered to you on completion of the
development works in the area. In the case of building or undeveloped land the
possession shall however be delivered within 90 days from the date of this
letter.
9. The above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of
land awarded by the competent authority under the land Acquisition Act shall
also be payable proportionately as determined by the authority. The additional
price determined shall be paid within thirty days of its demand.
26. The rate of interest 18% will be charged on delayed payment after due date of
instalments”.
From the above letter it is apparent that the Supreme Court vacated the stay order
in the year 1988 and allotment letter was issued shortly thereafter, i.e. on 27.1.1989.
Thereafter, the HUDA, after developing of the plot in May, 1992, i.e. within a period of
three years from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, issued letter offering
possession to the Complainant. As observed by the District Forum, it would take three
to four years to develop the land. Hence, it is apparent that there is no delay on the
part of the HUDA in delivering the possession of the plot. In those set of
circumstances, there is no question of payment of compensation/interest for delay in
handing over possession of the plot. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum
directing the HUDA to compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on
the deposits made by the Complainant for the delay in delivering the plot, cannot be
justified and is required to be set aside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, there is apparent error in passing the impugned order because before the
District Forum the complaint was limited to refund of excess amount of Rs. 26,134/-
which was recovered by the HUDA. Other prayer was refund of interest amount of Rs.
3,057/- paid by the Complainant.
For this amount it has been pointed out that it was increase in the cost because of
enhancement of compensation payable to the original land owners, whose land was
acquired by HUDA from which the plot in question was allotted to the Complainant.
This increase in the cost is referred to as enhancement cost. This is inconformity with
Para 3 of Notice dated 27.1.1989 for payment of additional price of the plot. It is to
the following effect:
“According to condition No. 9 of the allotment letter, the price of the said plot is
subject to the variation with reference to enhancement of compensation of
acquisition cost of land of this sector by the court. The enhanced compensation of
this sector has since been deposited in the court for payment to the concerned
parties and as such the same is recoverable from you. It has been worked out that
the enhanced is to be recovered @ Rs. 83.50 per sq. mt./yard and such an amount
of Rs. 29,225/- is recoverable from you in respect of the above mentioned plot.”
Thereafter, allotment letter dated 27.1.1989 was issued. Therein also Term No. 9
quoted above specifically provided that the price was tentative to the extent that any
enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under Land
Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately and is required to be paid within
30 days of its demand. Even by letter dated 18.2.1989 the Complainant wrote to the
HUDA that enhancement cost at the rate of Rs. 83.50 per sq. mtr. Worked out at Rs.
23,881/- and not Rs. 29,225/-. Therefore, this was required to be corrected.
Thereafter, by letter dated 4th March, 1989 she had agreed to pay the amount and
paid one-third of the amount. In this set of circumstances, there is no question of any
unjustifiable or illegal demand by the HUDA.
The excess amount was on the basis of the cost of the land acquisition. In the
result, the Revision Petition No. 1051 of 1999 filed by the HUDA is allowed. Impugned
orders passed by the District Forum which is confirmed by the State Commission is set
aside. In this view of the matter, the Complainant is directed to refund the amount of
Rs. 49,223/- paid to her as per the interim directions of this Commission. The
Complainant shall refund the said amount within a period of eight weeks from today.
In view of the aforesaid order the Revision Petition No. 1998 of 1999 filed by the
Complainant would not survive. The Complainant has prayed that the order passed by
the District Forum dated 28.11.1987 which is confirmed by the State Commission be
set aside and direct the HUDA to refund the amount of Rs. 59,026.65 on account of
excess amount of instalments illegally realised by the HUDA.
In the result, the Revision Petition No. 1998 of 1999 filed by the Complainant is
dismissed. The Revision Petition No. 1051 of 1999 filed by the HUDA is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the District Forum which is confirmed by the State
Commission is set aside. In the result, the complaint filed by the Complainant is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Huda V Kamaljit Kaur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Huda V Kamaljit Kaur

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Huda V Kamaljit Kaur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, August 30, 2023

2005 SCC OnLine NCDRC 13 : [2005] NCDRC 13 : (2005) 3 CPJ 64 (NC)

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi

You might also like