The allotment of residential sites by HUDA through auction is not intrinsically different from other modes of allotment, and the allottees of residential sites through auction are consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President— Whether the allotment of residential sites by the Haryana Urban Development Authority by way of auction is intrinsically different from the various other modes of allotment of such sites? This is indeed the solitary though significant question in this set of seven connected appeals. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the primal issue of law and facts being common this judgment will govern all of them.

2. The representative matrix of facts may be noticed from First Appeal No. 589 of 1993, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh & Others v. Narender Singh Doon. The admitted position is that the appellant-HUDA had sought to develop an extensive residential colony in the Police Lines area of Hissar way back in the mid-nineteen eighties. With regard to the said colony the Haryana Urban Development Authority made allotments of plots by various modes including those by auction, by direct allotment, by draw of lots and also by way of discretionary quotas. The respondent-complainants and many others were the recipients of their respective plots allotted to them by way of auction and were admittedly governed by the terms and conditions of the allotment letters issued to them. In accordance therewith they made payment of 10% of the price of the’ plots initially and deposited 15% on the issuance of the allotment orders to them. It is common ground that the balance was to be paid by six equated annual installments or more thereafter.

3. It is the common case of the respondent-allottees that the terms and conditions announced at the spot were that they would be delivered possession of their relevant plots in a developed condition within one year. Further more as per clause (5) of the allotment order this had necessarily to be done on the overall development of the area. The glaring grievance of the respondents is that neither any development was done in the area by the appellant-HUDA, and in fact it had not even been able to secure the possession of site itself far from developing the same and delivering individual plots to their respective allottees. What is more the appellant-HUDA was unable to indicate any time in the foreseeable future when delivery of the plots would be made. The respondents further stand was that they had been paying the amount of installments according to the schedule and in case of any delay the appellant-HUDA had charged interest at the rate of 10% from them. The action of the appellant-HUDA in neither giving possession nor any recompense for the amounts received by it was assailed in vituperative terms including one of indulging in an unfair trade practice and it was highlighted that the huge amounts were amassed by the appellant-HUDA by way of payments for plots of land which it was unable to secure possession itself far from delivering it to the complainant-respondents. Consequently the relief claimed was that at least interest be awarded to the allottees on the deposited amount till the time the appellants duly develop the area and delivers actual possession to the complainants.

4. On notice being issued the appellant-authority had put in an evasive reply skirting the primal issue and the grievance of the respondent-consumers. The routine plea taken was that after development, the actual and physical possession of the plot would be delivered to them without indicating any time in the foreseeable future for doing so. However, it had been frankly admitted that the development work could not be started in the Police Lines area so far at all due to the unavoidable circumstance that the police authorities had adamantly declined to vacate the area. It was the plea that this recalcitrance of the police authorities conferred immunity on the appellants, from giving any relief to the aggrieved consumer-respondents.

5. The District Forum took the view that the issue now stood covered by precedent and relying on II (1993) CPJ 1219 Estate Officer, HUDA v. Madan