IMPORTANT POINT
“Possession of allotted plot directed to be given but only after completion of the development work.

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant/respondent was allotted a residential plot in Mandi Township Sector of Bhiwani vide allotment letter dated 17.10.1989 for a price of Rs.1,46,250/-. The balance payment, after adjustment of the initial payment, was payable in lump-sum or in installments. In case the payment was to be made in installments, interest was payable with effect from the date on which the possession was to be offered.

2. The petitioner issued offer of possession to the complainant vide letter dated 01.07.1994. The case of the complainant is that the development work was not complete at that time whereas the case of the petitioner is that the offer of possession was issued only after completing the development work.

3. Alleging failure of the petitioner to deliver possession, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking possession of the allotted plot after completion of the development work alongwith compensation etc.

4. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia stated in its reply that the possession had been offered only after completing the development work. It was also stated in the reply that the complainant had failed to turn up to take possession of the plot and had further failed to get the Conveyance Deed executed in his favour.

5. The District Forum, vide its order dated 01.01.2008, directed as under:

“We direct the respondents to issue the fresh offer of possession after completing the development work and also direct to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on the deposited amount to the complainant after two years from the date of allotment till the date of payment, Besides it, cost of litigation is also allowed to the complainant, which we quantify at Rs.2000/-. Other reliefs are hereby declined. The order be complied within two months from today. In case of default, the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 12% p.a. on the above said awarded amount from the date of default till its final realization.”

6. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 18.01.2012, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being still aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

7. The only question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the development work was complete or not on the date the possession was offered vide letter dated 01.07.1994. The onus was upon the petitioner to prove that the development work had been completed before offering possession as was alleged in its written version filed before the District Forum. This was more so when the complainant had expressly alleged that the development work was not complete. The State Commission has specifically referred to the condition number 6 of the allotment letter which stipulated offering of possession on completion of the development work in the area. In any case, taking possession would be of no use unless at least the essential development work in the area had been carried out and the allottee is in a position to raise construction in the allotted plot.

8. The next question which arises for consideration is as to when the development work was completed. This would be so only if the work is already complete. The State Commission noted in its order that even the zoning plan was not sanctioned till 24.06.1997. Neither counsel has been able to show any document which would show that the zoning plan was not sanctioned till 24.06.1997. In these circumstances, it would only be fair and reasonable to verify the date on which the development work was complete in terms of clause 6 of the allotment letter. Hence, it is directed that the concerned Chief Engineer of HUDA will certify in writing within four weeks from today the date on which the development work in terms of clause 6 of the a