LT COL MANGAL SINGH NAGPAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant, who is a Defence Personnel, had applied for 14 Marlas plot located in Sectors 13 and 23 (Part) Urban Estate, Bhiwani under the reserve category by submitting his application along with draft No. BN/9 -129603 dated 5.3.1991 for Rs. 16,020 to the opposite parties. He was allotted plot No. 1643 measuring 299 sq. metres located in Sector -13, Bhiwani vide allotment letter bearing Memo No. 6253 dated 27.8.1991 on a tentative price of Rs. 1,60,200. The complainant deposited Rs. 24,030 on 9.9.1991 so as to constitute 25% of the total price of the allotted plot with the opposite parties. The complainant deposited the remaining instalments amount detailed in Para No. 5 of the complaint. The last sixth instalment was deposited by him on 4.9.1997. In this manner he deposited Rs. 1,60,450 with the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the said plot for a period of nine years despite the request made by him on several occasions up to the date of the filing of the complaint. The opposite parties as per letter bearing Memo No. 3414 dated 14.10.1998 informed the complainant that the allotted plot was the subject matter of litigation and for that reason the development work would not be completed in near future and an offer was made to him for allotment of the alternative plot and a consent letter was sought from him to be submitted before 30.10.1998. The complainant thereafter, submitted his consent letter on 21.10.1998 on the specified performa which was acknowledged by the opposite parties. The complainant then approached the opposite parties through registered letter dated 31.5.1999 to deliver the possession of the plot to him and also claimed interest amount on the deposits made by him in the intervening period. He was informed by the opposite parties as per letter No. 1970 dated 16.9.1999 that due to non -completion of the development work it was not possible for them to give possession of the allotted plot to him. It is further stated by him that as per letter bearing Memo No. 3568 dated 14.10.1996 the opposite parties had made a demand of Rs. 1,60,422.20 towards the enhanced price on account of land compensation which the complainant termed as unjustified and illegal and for that reason did not pay the additional price. He maintained that he would pay the additional price after the possession of the allotted plot or alternative plot was given to him. During this period the costs of construction had escalated and as he was to construct a double storey house, he would have to incur an additional expenditure of Rs. 7,00,261.80 on the building material and labour charges. It is under these circumstances that he invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint seeking directions against the opposite parties to deliver the possession of the allotted plot or the alternative plot in Sector -13 of the same size and at the same price to him; to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,60,450 from the date of deposit till the delivery of the possession of the allotted plot; to pay Rs. 7,00,261.80 as compensation on account of the costs of construction; to pay Rs. 20,000 as travelling and correspondence expenses etc.; Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and harassment caused to him; not to charge any interest on the payment of enhanced price demanded by the opposite parties and to pay Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. In pursuance to the notice served upon the opposite parties, they filed a joint written statement, wherein it was pleaded that the possession of the allotted plot would be delivered to the complainant on completion of the development work at the site. At the same time it was stated that the complainant had not paid the full and final payment of the price of the plot in question and for that reason notice for payment of the enhanced price of the plot has been issued to him which he failed to pay with interest to them in terms of the allotment letter issued to him. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint being not maintainable merited dismissal. The parties were afforded opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The complainant has produced on record his own affidavit and documents Annexures C -l to C -19, whereas the opposite parties have produced affidavit of Shri Dharam Pal, Estate Officer, HUDA, Bhiwani.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the complainant has been heard at length. None appeared to argue the matter on behalf of the opposite parties.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the complainant supported the facts mentioned in the complaint and also detailed in the affidavit of the complainant placed on record. It was highlighted by him that the opposite parties had rendered deficient services as they had failed to deliver the physical possession of the plot allotted to him within a reasonable time with the result the complainant will have to bear the escalated cost of construction and caused mental agony and harassment to him. Accordingly, it was prayed that the compensation claimed in the complaint be awarded to him.