Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2012 DIGILAW 973 (SC)

Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Beena Rani

2012-10-15

G.S.SINGHVI, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2012
ORDER : Delay condoned. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of 7.2.2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the National Commission') whereby the revision filed by them was dismissed and the direction given by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the State Commission') for allotment of alternative plot to the respondent was dismissed. 3. Plot No. 2086, Sector 12, Sonepat measuring 162 sq. meters was allotted to Darshan Kumar. On 17.10.1996, the plot was re-allotted to Rakesh Kumar. After about one year, the same plot was re-allotted to the respondent in terms of Clause 7 of the allotment letter. The possession was to be offered on completion of the development works. However, as the plot was omitted from the revised demarcation plan, the petitioners made an offer to the respondent on 19.4.2001 for allotment of another plot. The respondent accepted the offer. Thereafter, Plot No. 1768-B, Sector 12, Sonepat was allotted to the respondent vide letter dated 14.6.2001. The possession of the second plot could not be given to the respondent because the same was under encroachment. 4. Having failed to persuade the authorities to give possession of the plot, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act') for grant of the following reliefs: "(i) To allot a plot to the complainant or to allot an alternative plot to the complainant of the same size and same sector in same price. (ii) Payment of interest at the rate of 18% on the amount deposited with the Ops from the date of its deposit till the date of handing over the actual possession of the plot as the original plot allotted to the complainant was deleted by the O.P.s and the alternative plot allotted to the complainant is under litigation and the possession of the alternative plot was also not offered to the complainant till date or the disbursal of the amount, whichever is earlier. (iii) Not to charge interest over the instalments of the rate of 15% or penal interest at the rate of 18% compounded annually on the delayed payment of instalments/outstanding amount. (iv) Pay a sum of Rs. 2.00/- Lac on account of escalation of the costs of construction of the residential building of the demised plot. (v) Pay a sum of Rs. (iv) Pay a sum of Rs. 2.00/- Lac on account of escalation of the costs of construction of the residential building of the demised plot. (v) Pay a sum of Rs. 50000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 5000/- towards cost of litigation." 5. The petitioners filed reply to contest the complaint by asserting that there was no deficiency in service and the respondent was not entitled to any relief. 6. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short, 'the District Forum'), vide its order darted 23.6.2003 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to offer physical possession of the plot to the respondent after removing the encroachment and to pay interest-compensation at the rate of 18% per annum. The District Forum also directed that if it is not possible to offer physical possession of the plot then the amount deposited by the respondent be refunded to her with 12% interest w.e.f. 7.8.1997. 7. The petitioner challenged the order of the District Forum by filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, which was dismissed by the State Commission. The revision filed against the appellate order was dismissed by the National Commission vide order dated 17.7.2007 on the ground of delay and also on merits. SLP (C)No..../2008 (CC No.582/2008) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 25.1.2008. 8. In the meanwhile, respondent filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum and prayed that the petitioners herein be directed to allot alternative plot to her. The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to allot alternative plot to the respondent by observing that she cannot be deprived of her legitimate right to get the plot. 9. The petitioners challenged the second order of the State Commission in Revision Petition No.4132/2011. They also filed an application for condonation of 127 days delay. The National Commission dismissed the same on the ground of delay and also on merits. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. In our view, the reasons assigned by the State Commission for entertaining the respondent's prayer for issue of a direction to the petitioners for allotment of alternative plot to her are legally correct and the National Commission did not commit any error by refusing to interfere with the same. In our view, the reasons assigned by the State Commission for entertaining the respondent's prayer for issue of a direction to the petitioners for allotment of alternative plot to her are legally correct and the National Commission did not commit any error by refusing to interfere with the same. The manner in which the petitioners have acted for more than 15 years in the matter of giving possession of the plot allotted to the respondent speaks volume of the arbitrariness with which they treat the allottees of the plot and harass them for years together in different ways. 11. Be that as it may, we do not find any justification to entertain the special leave petition, which is dismissed with the direction that the petitioners shall implement the order of the State Commission within a period of one month from today. 12. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondent at the address mentioned in the special leave petition. Petition dismissed.