STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 12.02.2018
Date of final hearing: 25.08.2023
Date of pronouncement: 07.11.2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 70 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Surinder Pruthi S/o Late Sh. Ram Dhan Pruthi, R/o Flat No. 404, Shiva Apartments, Sector 21-D, Faridabad, Haryana, Mobile 9873181801, Email: ideas_flow@yahoo.co.in.
…..Complainant
Versus
- Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), through its Administrator, HUDA, HUDA Complex, Sector-12, Faridabad, Haryana.
- Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) through its Chief Administrator, HUDA, Plot No. C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana. …..Opposite Parties
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Complainant-Surinder Pruthi in person.
None for opposite parties.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Facts in complaint are: HUDA, through its Estate Officer-Faridabad invited general public through newspaper advertisement to participate in auction of certain commercial booth sites located in Sector-45, Faridabad on 18.06.2014. Complainant, through his relative, participated in auction on 18.06.2014; was declared successful bidder for booth site No. 51 for consideration amount of Rs.49.10 lacs. After making payment of 25% of bid amount, HUDA issued allotment/re-allotment letter dated 19.09.2014 and 07.01.2015 in favour of original allottee-Naresh Kumar and then in complainant’s favour. Original allottee was issued possession certificate by HUDA vide letter dated 20.11.2014. Complainant applied to HUDA for approval of building plan for construction at booth site No. 51 allotted to him which was granted by HUDA vide letter dated 18.02.2015. Thereafter, he approached HUDA for physical possession of site. HUDA officials showed their inability to handover the physical possession as they discovered that development work done by them at site did not match with approved drawing. Complainant requested several times to HUDA through letters dated 09.03.2015, 05.08.2015, 15.09.2015, 17.04.2017 and 23.05.2017 for giving him physical possession of booth site, but HUDA failed to give the same.
2. One of the other allottees Sh. S.K. Duggal, aged more than 75 years also approached HUDA. Since HUDA officials expressed their inability to give physical possession; he resorted to use RTI and received replies on 17.11.2015, 15.12.2015, 19.08.2016 and also through State Information Commission; copy of District Town Planner letter dated 17.02.2017. These replies have shown HUDA’s inability to give physical possession. Inordinate delay has caused huge financial loss and mental agony to him (complainant). Copy of letter dated 31.03.2017 obtained through RTI show latest demarcation plan was prepared by HUDA, but not yet sent to Chief Administrator, HUDA for approval. He made payments of ‘six monthly’ installments, as detailed in para 12 of complaint. Total amount paid is Rs.39,53,530/- (which is more than 80%). Complainant has been following up with HUDA officials by personal visits and by letters for grant of physical possession of site, but nothing had happened. Irresponsible behavior and laxity on the part of HUDA, in giving physical possession, was brought to the notice of print media viz. Hindustan Times, which after confirming facts from HUDA Administrator; printed an article in newspaper on 18.06.2016. Even though, HUDA is not supposed to charge interest for late payment of installments, till the time they give physical possession of booth sites; it is imposing interest @15% on complainant for late payment of installments which is incorrect and illegal. HUDA’s Estate Officer-cum-SPIO vide letter dated 06.02.2017 to State Information Commission gave false information that layout plan of Sector-45, Faridabad (auction site) stands already approved. Based on this reply; State Information Commission sent information to complainant (in response to RTI application of complainant) vide letter dated 20.02.2017 that layout plan has been got approved and re-auction has been ordered. Letter dated 17.02.2017 written by District Town Planner says that plan has not yet been sent to Chief Administrator for approval. All these show that they (HUDA) are not in a hurry to resolve the issue and instead of admitting their mistakes, are looking for easy escape route. On these facts; complainant has prayed that: HUDA be directed to give possession of booth site at the location which the complainant has successfully bid and successfully allotted as per plan shown in brochure for auction. If HUDA is unable to give possession at same site, then it be directed to give possession of similar size booth in nearby location in any sector near to booth site location or at District Centre, Sector-45, Faridabad. HUDA be directed to give interest @15% per annum to complainant i.e. on same rate of interest which it charges for late payment of installments, on the amount paid by him from the date of allotment till the date HUDA give physical possession of booth site (as per prayer; interest amount is approx. Rs.15.00 lacs). HUDA be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- per month to complainant for interim period from date of possession certificate till the date it gives physical possession of booth site for loss of business/opportunity as complainant could not do any gainful business/activity. HUDA be ordered to pay Rs.5.00 lacs to him for mental agony, undue harassment and torture suffered by him for irresponsible behaviour and non-action on its part. HUDA be directed to re-approve the building plan if necessary. Punitive damages against erring officials of HUDA be imposed.
Text of complaint is supported by complainant’s duly sworn affidavit dated 06.02.2018.
3. OPs/HUDA, in defence has pleaded that: commercial booth No. 51, Sector-45, Faridabad was auctioned on freehold basis with basement and single storey. Naresh Kumar R/o 952, Sector-21C, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad was highest bidder. Booth in question was allotted to him vide allotment memo No. 20891 dated 19.09.2014. Possession of plot was taken by original allottee-Naresh Kumar on 20.11.2014. Thereafter, Naresh Kumar sold the plot to complainant and re-allotment letter was issued to complainant vide Memo No. 400 dated 07.01.2015. Complainant is not covered under definition of consumer. He purchased booth site from original allottee and stepped into shoes of first allottee. All terms and conditions of auction, as well as, allotment are binding upon him. After transfer to plot in the name of complainant; he sent letters dated 05.08.2015 and 15.09.2015. OPs sent reply to complainant vide memo No. 637 dated 15.01.2016 stating that, possession of booth site has already been given to original allottee-Naresh Kumar on 20.11.2014 and he should contact original allottee. It is pleaded that no legal right of complainant has been infringed. He has no cause of action and locus standi and his complaint is not maintainable.
4. Development works at site in question were complete even before date of auction. In present case also; before holding auction of commercial sites; a specific detailed report regarding Sectors-45 & 46 was given by Executive Engineer-Faridabad on 28.11.2013 that development works in the area are complete and possession of sites can be offered immediately. Thus, complainant is not entitled to any relief regarding interest on deposited amount. Zoning plan of Sector 45-Faridabad was approved by Chief Administrator, HUDA-Panchkula. As per drawing No. DTP(F)2310/2004 dated 31.03.2004; the booths in Sector-45, Faridabad are clear at site. Once, main zoning plan is approved from Chief Administrator-HUDA-Panchkula; minor amendments, if any, can be approved by Zonal Administrators at their own level.
5. Physical possession of site could have been taken by complainant at site. Copy of letter dated 16.11.2017 has been received from District Town Planner. Approval of building plan could not be issued, without obtaining physical possession of site in question. In this case; possession of booth was obtained by original allottee-Naresh Kumar on 20.11.2014. Only thereafter, building plan was approved on 18.02.2015 and intimated to complainant. No question of inability to give possession arises. There was some change regarding road of Sector, but there was no change in the demarcation of booth site. There is no laxity on the part of HUDA officials in giving physical possession of booth site in question. There is no question of delay in delivery of possession, as well as, causing mental agony and harassment to complainant. It is pleaded as incorrect that Estate Officer, HUDA has wrongly and falsely informed State Information Commission regarding layout plan of Sector-45, Faridabad. In para No. 2 and last para of letter dated 17.02.2017; it is specifically mentioned that there was some HUDA land which was approved for parking in front of double storey Shop No. 1 to 5 (DSS) in the approved revised layout-cum-demarcation plan bearing drawing No. DTP(F)2310/04 dated 31.03.2014, has been omitted at site, due to some existing boundary wall at site, existed on South side of shopping center and this issue does not affect already approved demarcation/layout plan of the shopping center or regarding booth in question. On these pleas; dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
6. Parties led their respective evidence. Surinder Pruthi-complainant submitted his duly sworn affidavit dated 28.02.2019 Ex.CW-1/A and relied upon documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-25 and closed his evidence on 08.03.2019. OPs/HUDA submitted duly sworn affidavit dated 19.04.2019 Ex.OPW-1/A and relied upon documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6. OPs closed its evidence on 28.05.2019.
7. Written submissions were filed by complainant and also by OPs/HUDA on 26.07.2022 and 12.09.2022 respectively. In addition, this Commission has heard oral submissions of complainant on 25.08.2023. On that day (25.08.2023) nobody represented OPs.
8. Complainant has contended that: he is an allottee of HUDA regarding Booth No. 51, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Faridabad vide re-allotment letter No. 400 dated 07.01.2015 addressed to him. HUDA has also admitted this fact. It is urged that no physical possession of this site has been handed over to him, till date, despite his having paid Rs.39,53,530/- out of total consideration of Rs.49.10 lacs. It is urged that possession certificate Ex.C-4 regarding this plot is in favour of Naresh Kumar-original allottee. He (complainant) has been writing communications Ex.C-6 (dated 09.03.2015, 05.08.2015, 15.09.2015, 17.04.2017 and 23.05.2017) and requesting HUDA to deliver him physical possession of Booth No. 51, Sector-45, Faridabad. It is urged that Estate Officer’s, HUDA-Faridabad letter Ex.C-11 (addressed to Executive Engineer, HUDA, Division No. 2, Faridabad) bearing Memo No. 3894-95 dated 08.11.2015 establishes that physical possession of plot site No. 51 has not been allotted to complainant. Identical inference, as per contention, can be drawn from letter dated 27.07.2018 (Ex.C-12). Also, it is contended that letter of District Town Planner addressed to Senior Town Planner Faridabad dated 17.10.2017 (Ex.C-25) indicates that development work has not been done as per approved revised layout-cum-demarcation plan bearing drawing No. DTP(F)/2310/04 dated 31.03.2004. It is urged that order dated 07.02.2017 of the Chief Information Commission deciphers that information was furnished to it that “layout plan has been got approved from Head Quarter and re-auction has been ordered”. It is urged that this fact would also prove that no physical possession of site No. 51, Sector-45, Faridabad has been given to complainant. Also, letter Ex.C-14 bearing Endst. No.2391-95 dated 31.10.2018 has been pressed to contend that: this letter too suggests that physical possession of commercial site has not been given to complainant. On totality, it is contended that HUDA’s stand stood falsified that it has already given physical possession of site No. 51, Sector-45, Faridabad to Naresh Kumar-original allottee and development work at site was already completed, before auction of site.
9. Per contra, as per positive case of HUDA emanating from its written version, duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP-1/A and from brief synopsis so filed; physical possession of booth in question was taken by original allottee on 20.11.2014. Complainant was re-allotted this booth on 07.01.2015. Report dated 28.11.2013-Ex.RW-5 indicates that development works in area are complete before holding auction of commercial site and possession of site can be offered immediately. Zoning plan of Sector-45-Faridabad was approved by Chief Administrator-HUDA-Panchkula vide drawing No. 2310 dated 31.03.2014. Approval of building plan was also issued to complainant on 18.02.2015 on the basis of obtaining of physical possession of site in question (Booth No. 51, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Faridabad) by original allottee-Naresh Kumar and in furtherance to re-allotment of this booth in favour of complainant vide letter dated 07.01.2015.
10. Rival contentions noted above have been critically analyzed. Admittedly: Naresh Kumar was original allottee of Booth No. 51, Urban Estate, Sector-45, Faridabad. Ex.OP-1 is the allotment letter No. 20891 in favour of Naresh Kumar. Clause-6 of this letter Ex.OP-1 reads: “The possession of site is hereby offered with this allotment”. Ex.OP-2 is the possession certificate dated 20.11.2014 issued in favour of original allottee-Naresh Kumar. It would be apt to reproduce the following text of possession certificate Ex.OP-2:-
“I Naresh Kumar- the allottee have taken possession of Plot No. 51, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Faridabad as per above dimensions, allotted to me vide Estate Officer, HUDA allotment letter No. 20891 dated 19.09.2014”.
11. Admittedly, complainant-Surinder Pruthi is transferee of Booth No. 51, Sector-45, Urban Estate-Faridabad, from original allottee-Naresh Kumar. Document Annexure OP-3/Ex.C-1 bearing memo No. 400 dated 07.01.2015 is on captioned subject: Re-allotment of Plot No. 51, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Faridabad Commercial Booth site Single Storey, W/basement measuring 22.69 sq. mtr. Once, HUDA has conferred physical possession of plot of this booth site to original allottee-Naresh Kumar on 20.11.2014, then, under implication of law, the physical possession of this site stood inherently transferred to complainant-Surinder Pruthi, by virtue of transfer/re-allotment of this site in his favour. If, the complainant has any subsisting grievance regarding physical possession part of this booth; then he could have resorted to appropriate legal remedies against original allottee only. This is just because, possession certificate Ex.OP-2 contains an express stipulation from original allottee Naresh Kumar that: he has taken possession of plot No. 51, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Faridabad. In wake of above situation; HUDA has absolutely no role to play to ensure that complainant herein, has to be again put in possession by it, on account of transfer or re-allotment of this plot in complainant’s favour. Once, HUDA has conferred physical possession of any of its site to any of allottee, then on the occasion of re-allotment/transfer of that site to anyone by HUDA from original allottee; the possession part is to be settled by original allottee and subsequent allottee themselves, as it would become an inter-se dispute between them. HUDA becomes a foreign element in that situation. It is not evident, even remotely in this case, that complainant was ever left in lurch by HUDA regarding possession of booth No. 51, Sector-45, Faridabad. Hence, in given scenario of facts; no halter around the neck of HUDA can be put, on complainant’s misconceived notions/submissions.
12. Through letter dated 15.01.2016, bearing Memo No. 637 Ex.OP-4; Estate Officer, HUDA-Faridabad has informed complainant, in reply to complainant’s letters dated 05.08.2015 & 15.09.2015 that: possession of Booth No. 51, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Faridabad has been given to original allottee-Naresh Kumar, hence complainant should contact original allottee. In opinion of this Commission, HUDA has conveyed a positive fact to complainant regarding physical possession part of booth site in question, vide its letter dated 15.01.2016. If complainant has any grievance regarding genuineness of phraseology of HUDA’s letter Ex.OP-4, he could have resorted to appropriate legal remedy immediately, and that too within the legally prescribed limitation period. This compliant has been filed by him on 12.02.2018. It is clearly time barred, if limitation is reckoned from 15.01.2016. All subsequent communications, if any, by complainant to HUDA, will not legally stop the limitation to run, which has already began its pace/running from 15.01.2016. Hence, it is held that this complaint is time barred and liable to be dismissed as such. It is accordingly dismissed being time barred.
13. Matter does not end here. Building plan of Booth Site No. 51, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Faridabad was approved and approval was conveyed to complainant on 18.02.2015 with reference to his application dated 16.01.2015. Obviously, approval of building plan will largely suggest the emergence of fact that complainant has already obtained physical possession from original allottee, on the strength of transfer/re-allotment of this plot in question, vide memo No. 400 dated 07.01.2015. Tall claims raised by complainant in present complaint that he has not been given physical possession of this plot by HUDA, stood belied and falsified. Once, approval of building plan was conveyed to complainant, he could have raised his voice and concern, then and there, that he has no physical possession of this booth with him. Curiously enough, he remained silent. This circumstance would also stimulate the observation of this Commission that this complaint is hopelessly time-barred.
14. Following is the integral part of letter bearing Endst. No. 2391-95 dated 31.10.2018 viz: Ex.C-14 addressed by SPIO-cum-Estate Officer, HSVP, Faridabad to State Information Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh:-
“The undersigned has scrutinized the contents of application dated 18.12.2017 and latest application dated 20.09.2018 addressed to your office and it is submitted that the undersigned has had talked to DTP Planning, Executive Engineer Division-II, HSVP, Faridabad and SDE(S) to take immediate action for approval of revised layout plan, development of commercial sites of Sector-45, Faridabad and to send Joint inspection as already directed in this office Administrator (FAA) D.O. letter no. 10581 dated 08.12.2017, SDE(S) has been instructed to do dimension at site so that physical possession of commercial site which stands auction could be given, to avoid financial loss to HSVP and allottee also.”
This letter is not specific with regard to plot No. 51, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Faridabad. It contains a generalized recital regarding commercial sites of Sector-45, Faridabad. Nowhere, this letter suggests, even remotely, that possession of site of booth re-allotted to complainant is still not delivered. Hence, this letter will not sub-serve any majestic cause of complainant.
15. Following is the observation of Chief Information Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh in order dated 21.11.2016 Ex.C-24 in case titled as Satinder Kumar Duggal Versus SPIO-cum-Estate Officer-1, HUDA, Sector-12, Faridabad etc.
“The Commission observes that despite the fact that auctioned price/installment of booths have been deposited, the successful bidders are waiting for the possession as the development works at site does not tally with the demarcation plan. The bidders feel that they had invested money depending upon the creditability of the urban Development Authority and did not expect any unfair treatment from the Government instrumentality. The Commission noted the submission of the appellant that there are two commercial sites namely District Center and Shopping Center in Sector-45, Faridabad. In case the site of Shopping Center does not tally with the available approved demarcation plan, the site of District Center which is lying vacant be allotted to them to accommodate them. The Commission further observes that the public authority is required to address the issue with sincerity so that bidders can be saved from prolonged hardship which is unwarranted; pay quick attention so that citizen can be protected from unnecessary hardship.”
16. This communication also reflects general observation regarding development works of two commercial sites namely: District Center and Shopping Center, Sector-45, Faridabad. It is no where specific and particular to plot in question (Plot No. 51, Sector 45, Faridabad). More so, it relates to an appeal filed by one Satinder Kumar Duggal. Thus, reliance place by complainant upon this document (Ex.C-24) is also unfounded.
17. Ex. C-25 is another communication dated 17.02.2017 by office of District Town Planner-Faridabad to State Town Planner-Faridabad. Even this communication, on its minute perusal, reflects some general opinion regarding development works in Shopping Center, Sector 45, Faridabad. Nowhere, it relates to cause of complainant.
18. Ex. C-11 is another document pressed by complainant. It is memo No. 3894 dated 08.11.2015. The body of this memo runs as under:-
“Subject:- Development of Shopping center in Sector 45, Faridabad.
On the cited subject, it is intimated that as reported by Sub Divisional Engineer (Survey), HUDA, Faridabad the development works at site of Shopping Center, Sector-45, Faridabad does not tally with the available approved demarcation plan in this office No. 2310/04 dated 31.03.2004 and we have already allotted sits No. 47 to 56 and 1 to 6, 6A and 6B and the allottees are pressing hard to us for physical possession of their respective sites.
Keeping in view the above mentioned facts it is requested to supply a copy of demarcation plan urgently according to which the development works have been done at site to avoid any legal implication and financial loss to HUDA”.
19. Even, this document (Ex.C-11) does not recite anywhere that erstwhile original allottee-Naresh Kumar of Plot No. 51, Sector 45, Faridabad was also pressing hard for claiming physical possession, in total disregard to possession certificate Ex.OP-2 dated 20.11.2014. This letter is 08.11.2015 and instant complaint was filed, more than two years thereafter on 12.02.2018. More so, in present complaint; original allottee-Naresh Kumar is not a party. Equally, there is no evidence, either through duly sworn affidavit of Naresh Kumar or through any supportive document showing that Naresh Kumar was not given physical possession of Plot No. 51, Sector 45, Faridabad and consequently; possession certificate Ex. OP-2 dated 20.11.2014 is farce, fraudulent and false document. Also, there is no evidence that signature of erstwhile original allottee-Naresh Kumar was obtained, on blank paper by Officials of Estate Office-HUDA, Faridabad and in integral part of possession certificate; the text showing acknowledgement by original allottee-Naresh Kumar, regarding his having taken possession of Plot No. 51, Sector 45, Urban Estate-Faridabad has been crafted, subsequently. It was for complainant to lead this quality evidence.
20. Once, it is established on record that: actual physical possession of Plot No. 51, Sector 45, Faridabad had been given to previous allottee-Naresh Kumar, then as a legal corollary so flowing, it is held that original allottee, had also put present complainant in physical possession of above site, on transfer/re-allotment of it, to complainant. Consequently, claim made by complainant in present complaint that HUDA is directed to give him physical possession of plot, stood traumatized and demolished. Once complainant has no case on his principal prayer then all subsequent prayers made in complaint carry no weight, having become redundant. As a sequel thereto it is held that present complaint is wholly misconceived and bereft of credence. Accordingly, this complaint, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
21. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
22. Copy of this judgment be provided to parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
23. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 07th November, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
