ORDER

1. The dispute in this Revision Petition relates to an allegation of deficiency against the Petitioner in its failure to deliver possession of the plot booked and allotted to Respondents No. 1 to 3.
2. Consumer Complaint No. 385 of 2021 was instituted by the Complainants, Respondent No. 1 to 3 herein, alleging the failure on the part of the Petitioner resulting in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Petitioner together with the performa Respondents No. 4 to 12 were arrayed as Opposite Parties therein who after notice have put in appearance and the Written Version was filed. The factual aspect about the allotment of the plot to the Complainant was accepted but the relief prayed for was resisted on the ground that the allotted land cannot be delivered to the Petitioner as the land surrounding the allotted plot fell within a “critical gap area” as the acquisition thereof was not complete and the matter was under litigation. It was urged that the acquisition has not become final as no award has been delivered in respect of the said land and as such the access to the plot cannot be developed without the acquisition being complete.
3. On contest the District Commission held that the Petitioner Company failed to give the confirmed date of handing over possession and also did not display the correct picture with regard to the project to the Complainants / Respondents inducing them to part with their hard-earned money that amounted to unfair trade practice.      
4. The District Commission further found that this was deficiency in service as the allottee cannot be made to wait indefinitely as the possession ought to have been delivered within a reasonable period of three years that ended in the year 2014. Accordingly, the District Commission allowed the Complaint to the extent that there was deficiency on the part of the Petitioner by not delivering the plot and accordingly directed to hand over the physical possession of the plot in question with all basic facilities and amenities subject to any balance payments, and in the event the company is unable to deliver the allotted plot, then in that eventuality the company was directed to allot another plot of the same size in the same sector together with all basic facilities and amenities. The Order was to complied within 90 days.
5. The Order of the District Commission was challenged by the Complainants as well as by the Petitioner in two Appeals, First Appeal No. 79 of 2024 by the Complainants seeking a modification in the relief awarded and First Appeal No. 104 of 2024 by the Petitioner praying for setting aside the entire order of the District Commission.
6. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Appeal filed by the Complainants / Respondents was partly allowed modifying the Order of the District Commission to the extent by awarding delay compensation to the Complainants @ 9% from the committed date of delivery till the actual date of possession on the amount deposited by the Complainant and to handover physical possession, together with future compensation as well till compliance of the directions. A compensation of Rs.75,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.35,000/- towards litigation was also awarded.
7. This Order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the State Commission has been impugned by the Builder / Developer Petitioner contending that both the Commissions below have completely overlooked the factual aspect of non-availability and accessibility to the allotted land on account of the same falling within the critical gap area which the Petitioner alleges is unavailable as the acquisition of the land in and around the allotted plot is not complete. This argument has been advanced by displaying the sanctioned map and by pointing out the surrounding area which according to the Petitioner can neither be allotted or sold and stands excluded.
8. Learned Counsel had at the time of entertaining the Revision Petition made an offer through an affidavit dated 24.09.2024 which is extracted herein under:

“AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER – TDI INFRA TECH LIMITED

I, Paras Arora, aged about 37 years, S/O Sh. Deepak Arora, Authorised Representative of the M/S TDI Infratech Ltd. having its registered office at D-92, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar - I, Lajpat Nagar, South Delhi, New Delhi solemnly affirm and declare as under: - 110024, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

       1. I state that I am the duly Authorised Representative of the Petitioner and as such I am authorised to swear this affidavit. I am well        conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.

       2. It is reiterated that, albeit the plot in question is available with the Petitioner herein, however, the land around the said plot is not               available with the Petitioner herein as the Khasra in which the plot falls, is pending acquisition. The said fact including that it               constitutes part of the Critical Gap Area has been explained in detail, in the petition filed by the Deponent herein.

3. Therefore, albeit the Plot itself is available, the connectivity/ accessibility of the same are a matter of concern. Further, as the area surrounding the said Plot is not available with the Petitioner, the Petitioner is unable to provide basic amenities on the plot in question.

4. I state that the Critical Gap Area refers to the minute portion of the entire project land which was to be acquired by the Government of Punjab as per the policy applicable to the project of the Respondent.

5. I further state that the Petitioner herein, in alternative is willing to offer the below mentioned alternate plots, which are available with the Petitioner, to the Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein: -

              a. Plot No. 5133 in Sector 116 of the project

              b. Plot No. 2072 in Sector 117 of the project

              c. Plot No. 3018 in Sector 117 of the project

Photo of the Plot bearing No. 5133 in Sector 116 of the project is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-

I. Photo of the Plot bearing No. 2072 in Sector 117 of the project is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-

II. Photo of the Plot bearing No. 3018 in Sector 117 of the project is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-

6. It merits mention that the project in which the Complainants has booked the plot is largely a sold-out project. Out of 1821 plots in the projects, 1818 plots are accounted for. It merits mention that in 114 plots, floors have been constructed, in 66 plots the access is not clear and on 36 plots, there are legal cases pending of course on account cancellation/ default of some customers or in resale, some plot may come back to the Company, but those cases are few and far between. At present, the Petitioner does not have a marketable plot in its inventory. Out of reference for what fell down from this Hon'ble Commission, the Petitioner has shown three plots to the Consumer. The Petitioner must however state that the Petitioner does not consider them marketable and thus not part of its inventory on account of the fact that the same have not found buyers/ purchasers.

7. All of the plots are at the end of the line of plots. Two of the plots are surrounded by fields and one is in front of the STP for the area. The customer is welcome to choose any of these three plots which ordinarily the Petitioner Company does not consider as part of its inventory.

8. In case, the Consumer elects to choose any one of the three plots, the Petitioner Company shall undertake all possible measures to ensure that the chosen plot is habitable and secure.

9. I state that the contents stated herein are true and correct as derived from the records available with me.

10. I further state that the averments stated herein are true and correct as derived from the records available and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. ”

9. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 had put in appearance through Caveat and they were called upon to respond to the said offer made to which a reply dated 16.10.2024 has been filed. The contesting Respondents have declined the said offer of the alternate plots suggested in the offer made by the Petitioners by making the following statements in Paragraph No. 2 – 13 of their reply:

“2.     It is stated that the Respondents categorically reject the proposal offered by the Petitioner concerning the allocation of an alternate plot since the proposed alternate plots are situated in a remote area, which is neither desirable nor suitable for the intended purpose for which the original Plot No. 587 was purchased in TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab – 160055. The Petitioner’s offer is an attempt to evade their obligation and is causing further harassment and inconvenience to the Respondents.

3.       It is stated that in the year 2011, the respondents purchased plot bearing No. 587, measuring 250 sq. yards, located in TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab, for which the petitioner duly received the total payment by 04.10.2011. Subsequently, the allotment letter for the said plot was issued in favour of the respondents on 12.11.2011. As per the terms of the allotment, possession of the said plot was to be handed over within 14 months, i.e., by 11.01.2013, however, even after a period of almost 13 years, the possession has not yet been delivered to the respondents. It is pertinent to highlight that the respondents chose the said plot due to its desirable location, making it ideal for the respondent’s residential needs.

4.       That the alternate plots offered by the Petitioner in place of original plot no. 587 are situated in Sector 116 and Sector 117 of Mohali, Punjab, which is more than 3 kms away from the original plot and is in a remote, underdeveloped area, which is not comparable to plot no. 587 situated in Sector 118, in relation to location, amenities, and overall utility. This significant difference in location fundamentally diminishes the value and utility of the property offered as an alternative. The Respondents purchased Plot No. 587 in TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab with a specific purpose of living and location in mind, and any alteration to the original location directly impacts its value and use.

5.       The plots offered and listed in the petitioner’s inventory cannot in any manner be compared to the respondent’s originally bought plot No. 587 in TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab. The petitioner has failed to offer alternate plots of comparable value and location in the same sector i.e. Sector 118, which amounts to continued unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

6.       Furthermore, it is pertinent to point out that the petitioner has had 46 plots cleared in TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab, including plot no. 587 belonging to the Respondents, vide layout plan dated 13.01.2023, which should have been offered to the respondents instead. The petitioner is attempting to unjustly withhold these cleared plots from buyers who have already paid the full amount nearly 13 years ago and received allotment letters back in 2011.

7.       That selling these 46 duly cleared plots vide layout plan dated 13.01.2023, to any other buyer before handling over the possession to the Respondents amounts to unfair trade practice and these plots must not be sold or transferred to any third party until the respondents and other eligible buyers who bought plots almost 13 years ago receive their rightful possession. Any attempt by the petitioner to sell these plots to any other third party / new buyers would amount to further malafide actions.

8.       That the Petitioner’s claim of not having possession of the area around Plot No. 587 is untenable. Any layout plan is approved only after the due consideration of surrounding areas and road accessibility. The Petitioner’s approval of Plot No. 587 contradicts their argument of inability to develop the land or provide necessary services.

9.       That the “critical gap area” mentioned by the petitioner is irrelevant to the present case at the present time. The respondent’s plot is free from any acquisition or dispute, as confirmed by the said layout plan. Thus, the petitioner’s reliance on this is irrelevant to the case and is an excuse to further harass the respondents. The said property is not under acquisition and has been duly cleared as per the layout plan dated 13.01.2023. Any contention to the contrary is an attempt to mislead this Hon’ble Commission.

10.     It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner’s submissions across multiple forums show inconsistency. Initially, the Petitioner argued that the plot was under acquisition. Now, in this Hon’ble Commission, the Petitioner contends that the plot is clear, but the surrounding area is not. The Respondent, through persistent efforts, running from pillar to post, has proven the plot in question to be clear of all encumbrances, and there is no valid ground for denying possession of the plot no. 587 complete in all respects. Further, the zoning map dated 28.02.2023 clearly shows a road leading to the Respondent’s plot, through which all necessary amenities can be easily provided. This conduct by the Petitioner is a clear attempt to harass the Respondent further. A copy of zoning may dated 28.02.2023 is annexed herein as Annexure – A.

11.     That it is pertinent to note that the development of plots in TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab – 160055, including the provision of electricity has been completed up till plot no. 414/1 and plot no. 407, with the road also constructed up to this point. Photographs of the development of plots completed up to plot no. 414/1 and plot no. 407 along with the road constructed up to this point is annexed herewith as Annexure – B (Colly). The copy electricity bill for plot no. 406 is annexed herewith as Annexure – C.

12.     It is crucial to highlight here that the respondent’s plot, bearing no. 587, is situated approximately 100 meters from plot no. 407 and Plot No. 414/2. As per the layout plan dated 13.01.2023 and zoning plan dated 28.02.2023, the road is supposed to be developed, and the petitioner has deliberately delayed development and construction with malafide intent, causing further harassment to the respondents and other aggrieved buyers.

13.     That the Respondents have already endured prolonged delays and harassment due to the Petitioner’s failure to hand over possession of Plot No. 587 in TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab – 160055, as per the original terms. Offering an alternate plot in a far-off, inferior location only adds to the mental agony and frustration faced by the Respondents.”     

10. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has also urged that the zonal plan which has been sanctioned indicates that the sanction is for the access to the plot through a 40 feet wide road and the learned Counsel has orally submitted that the Petitioner has also obtained a sanctioned sewerage map on 03.07.2024. The contention therefore is that the same plot is available which can be developed and for which the excuse set up that it is still not completely acquired is wrong.
11. The contention raised is that the orders that have been referred to in Civil Writ Petition No. 15216 of 2009 and 15651 of 2009 nowhere create any impediment to the title or to the acquisition process of the land surrounding the plot of the Complainants. The said orders have also been cited at the bar by the learned Counsel to contend that there is no impediment much less a legal impediment in handing over possession of the plot.
12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has however urged that the Orders clearly indicate that the acquisition is incomplete as the final award has not been delivered and in such circumstances neither under the sanctioned plan nor in view of the said orders the possession can be delivered legally to the contesting Respondents.
13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also emphasized on the location, the identity and the status of the land in around the allotted plot to contend that the said Khasra numbers are subject matter of the notifications and it is the same Khasra numbers which has not yet attained any finality of acquisition, hence the insistence of the Commission below and that of the Complainants to have the same plot of land after being developed with all facilities and amenities is an impossibility because it falls within the critical gap area.
14. It has been orally submitted at the conclusion of arguments by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that even if the Commission comes to the conclusion that the relief prayed for deserves to be granted, then in that event the plot can be delivered possession only if it is available in future and for that waiting period, the Petitioners be permitted to deposit any reasonable amount which the Commission may direct so that the Petitioners are not saddled with any financial liabilities at the time of the delivery possession whenever it might occur in future of the same plot.
15. We have considered the submissions raised and the first argument which needs to be dealt with is the argument about the acquisition not being complete.  We have perused both the orders of the High Court as also the findings of the fora below and we find that they do not create any impediment or cast a shadow on the title or ownership of the plot or the area around it, as the acquisition that was under challenge before the High Court has already been upheld. It is only the passing of the award about which an order had been passed by the High Court. The acquisition is therefore final and hence the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the acquisition proceedings are indeterminate is incorrect. The fact that the plot is existing and is available is not denied. What is being contended is that the land in and around the allotted plot is still subject to final acquisition. This area of the land, which is described as the “critical gap area” around the plot in question, was clearly a part of the notification of acquisition as is evident from the Khasra numbers of the plots that has been shown by the learned counsel. The modalities and calculations, if any, regarding he final award does not eclipse or impede the acquisition of the said land in any way which is final. The land surrounding the plot is not to be sold or excluded but only to be developed as per the plans duly sanctioned. There is nothing to indicate the exclusion of the land from acquisition. The same cannot be a ground to deny delivery of possession of the plot, and even otherwise if the zonal plan of the said area has been sanctioned indicating that the Petitioner is authorized to develop the land, then in that event accessibility to the plot has to be ensured by the Petitioner in compliance of the sanctioned zonal plan.
16. The plot therefore as allotted to the Respondents in our opinion is available and the conclusions drawn by the District Commission as well as the State Commission do not suffer from any infirmity as alleged. The argument that the land surrounding the plot is a “critical gap area” and legally or factually unavailable, is a self serving definition of the Petitioner for resisting the delivery of the land by not making any attempt to ensure the accessibility to the plot which is an obligation of the Petitioner. The delay has already been made and is continuing. The State Commission was therefore justified in modifying the Order of the District Commission by issuing directions for payment of delay compensation in the terms as contained in the Impugned Order. We do not find any justification to entertain the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on that count.
17. The justification for offering alternative plots by the Petitioner as indicated herein above also is inequitable inasmuch as the plots offered are at different places as admitted by the Petitioner and as explained by the contesting Respondents who are justified in refusing to take the alternative plots. The unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioner is therefore writ large and the deficiency is established. The oral request to deposit any amount needs no consideration in the light of what has been concluded above.
18. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the Orders passed by the District Commission as modified by the State Commission. The Revision Petition lacks merits and is accordingly rejected.