SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Shakuntla Devi has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint by alleging deficiency in service against HUDA, in the matter of delivery of vacant physical possession of the plot allotted to her and completing the necessary development projects, as also for compensation by way of interest on the amounts deposited by her, etc.

(2.) According to the complainant, plot No.40, measuring 14 Marlas in Sector 8, Urban Estate, Karnal, was allotted to her on 22.4.1986. For more than 5 years HUDA did not deliver the vacant physical possession of the plot to the complainant and it was only in 1992 that symbolic possession of the plot was offered to the complainant. Even thereafter, for another 5 years the possession was still not delivered to the complainant even though the complainant had deposited the whole price of the plot. Feeling aggrieved against this deficiency in service on the part of HUDA, the complainant has approached this Commission claiming interest on the amounts deposited by him and for claiming compensation for the mental harassment and monetary loss, as also on account of escalation in the cost of construction etc. , especially when during the last one decade HUDA has failed to complete the development projects which was the condition precedent for starting of construction on the plot.

(3.) In their reply, HUDA almost admitted the factual position but pleaded that since the plot in question was of a discretionary quota one having been allotted to the complainant in 1987, the allotment was under challenge before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a writ petition filed by one Anil Sabharwal, hence the matter was sub-judice. So far as the completion of development projects is concerned, it has been pleaded that the same have been completed. Therefore, HUDA was not liable to pay any interest on the amounts paid by the complainant. Replication was filed by the complainant in which the allegations made in the complaint have been reiterated and it has also been averred that the plot in question having been allotted prior to 31.10.1989 the allotment of the same stood saved by the decision of Hon'ble the High Court dated 7.5.1997, as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the objection raised by HUDA was wholly without any merit. Documentary evidence has also been produced by the complainant to illustrate that during this period there has been drastic escalation in the cost of construction and the delay in the delivery of possession has caused considerable monetary loss to the complainant.