SHARMILA DEVI Vs. ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA & ANR
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2006-5-1
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 04,2006

SHARMILA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
Administrator, Huda And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS order shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals titled Smt. Sharmila Devi v. Administrator, HUDA & Anotherand HUDA v. Smt. Sharmila Devi, which have arisen from common order dated 23.10.2000 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), wherebycomplaint of Smt. SharmilaDevi was accepted and it was ordered that Smt. Sharmila Deviwasnot liable to pay extension fee and further she should be given no due certificate and also possession of the plot in question be handed over to her besides sanctioning the site plan for construction of the building on the plot in question.The Haryana Urban Development Authoritywas given one month time to comply with the order, failing which it was ordered to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited by Smt. Sharmila towards price of the plot.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts as culled out from the complaint of Smt. Sharmila Devi are that she was allotted residential plot bearing No. 101 in HUDA Colony, Mandi Dabwaliin the year 1992 vide allotment letter No. 2179 dated 17.8.1992 for a price of Rs. 1,70,000 which was to be paid in instalments as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter.It was next averred that she paid all the dues on 22.1.1998 and thereafter nothing remained due and furtherthrough her special power of attorney/father -in -law Sh. Prem Dass,she applied for no due certificate , for taking possession of the said plot and also for getting site plan sanctioned for the purpose of constructing the house and even deposited Rs. 365, fee for sanctioning the site plan but nothing was done.
(3.)IT was also averred that the Haryana Urban Development Authority failed to deliver thepossession or to give no due certificate or to sanction the site plan.Alleging deficiency in service, she filed complaint and prayed for grant of above mentioned reliefs. She also prayed that she be allowed interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 1,83,408 paid by her from 22.1.1998 till the date of possession and further Rs. 20,000 be allowed as compensation.
The Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Administrator contested the complaint and filed written reply.It took certain preliminary objections; that the complaint was not maintainable, that HUDA had not been made a party, that the complaint was false and frivolous. On merits, it admitted that whole of the amount of Rs.1,83,408 had been paid on 22.1.98 but stated thatpossession of the plot was offered to her vide memo No. 2131 dated 6.12.1994 and then reminder was issued vide memo No. 2012 dated 6.11.1995 but she failed to take possession of the plot in question.It next stated that letter bearing No. 611 dated 29.3.1996 was written to the complainant Smt. Sharmila Devi to take possession of the plot by paying some amount which was due from her and then another letter was sent to her bearing No. 4411 dated 1.12.1997 to execute deed of conveyance in the prescribed form by providingnon -judicial papers of certain amount but she failed to do so.It stated that the site plan could not have been sanctioned without taking physical possession of the plot in question and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.