Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Vinod Kumar – Complainant
versus
Greter Mohali Area
Development Authority – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.418 of 2018
Decided on 23.11.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Extension - Admittedly under bye laws the extension can be granted after paying penalty for it.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Plot – Extension of payment of instalment – not permissible – As per By-Laws - In the present case, the complainant purchased the plot from A - The complainant took plea that due to dispute with the farmers relating to the acquisition of the land, the opposite party was neither in a position to deliver possession of the plot in dispute nor it was feasible for the complainant to take its possession. Therefore, the complainant righty did not deposit the instalments payable from March, 2015 onwards. A perusal of clause 10 of the allotment letter dated 21.03.2013 shows possession has to be taken within 60 days of issue of allotment and in case the allottee fails to take possession within 60 days, it would be presumed that allottee had taken possession of the plot in dispute - Although Supreme Court has quashed the acquisition by order dated 22.01.2015, but the opposite party settled the dispute with the farmers by allotting them residential and commercial plot in proportion of their acquired area and plot No.2442 of the complainant remained unaffected. The complainant seeks benefit of allotment letter dated 21.03.2013, in respect of rate of land as such he is liable to comply with the terms and condition of the allotment letter dated 21.03.2013. Re-schedule the instalment, waiving interest and surcharges during this period, will not be appropriate. A perusal of the allotment letter dated 21.03.2013 shows that Plot No.2442 was Park Facing and its tentative cost was Rs.8137395/-. As such the complainant has to make payment in terms of allotment letter dated 21.03.2013 - Admittedly under bye laws the extension can be granted after paying penalty for it – Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed. [Paras 6 to 8]
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Vinod Kumar (the complainant) has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) reschedule the instalments starting from the time of actual handover of plot No.2442 admeasuring 258.33 sq. yards, Sector 79, SAS Nagar, Mohali, for all intent and purposes i.e. payment of interest, starting period of construction etc. (ii) pay compensation in the form of interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.5106965/-, from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, (iii) pay Rs.5/- lakhs as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iv) pay Rs.88000/-, as the cost of the litigation; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The complainant stated that Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (the opposite party) was a statutory authority and was developing township at SAS Nagar, Mohali under Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. One Amrit Pal Singh, (predecessor-in-interest of the complainant) applied for allotment of a residential plot, in this scheme on 15.01.2001. The opposite party raised dispute relating to his eligibility. Therefore, Amrit Pal Singh filed CWP No.12573 of 2011 in Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was allowed on 19.07.2012 and the opposite party was directed to allot one plot to Amrit Pal Singh. The opposite party issued Letter of Intent dated 24.01.2013, informing that tentative price of plot of approx. 250 sq. yards was Rs.75/- lakhs and requiring him to deposit 25% of the cost within 60 days. Amrit Pal Singh deposited required amount on 18.03.2013. Amrit Pal Singh was allotted Plot No.2442/Park Facing, tentative cost of Rs.8137395/- Sector 79, SAS Nagar, Mohali, in draw. The opposite party issued allotment letter dated 21.03.2013, of Plot No.2442 to Amrit Pal Singh. The complainant purchased Plot No.2442 from Amrit Pal Singh and moved an application dated 20.05.2013 before Estate Officer for recording his name over the aforesaid plot, which was allowed and the opposite party issued Re-Allotment Letter dated 13.06.2013 of Plot No.2442 in favour of the complainant on the same terms and condition as mentioned in allotment letter dated 21.03.2013. As per allotment letter dated 21.03.2013, the allottee was required to take possession within 60 days of the allotment. The complainant stated that the plot was not feasible for taking possession as in Sector-79, SAS Nagar, Mohali, about 102 acres land was under litigation relating to its acquisition, with the farmers. The complainant sought for an information about the feasibility of the plot under Right to Information Act, 2005. Then the opposite party gave reply on 08.08.2014 that the plot was feasible for possession. The complainant sought for information as to whether plot No.2442 situated over 102 acres land and was subject matter was dispute. Then the opposite party in reply dated 18.08.2015, admitted that plot No.2442 was within 102 acres disputed land. The complainant moved an application dated 20.08.2015, before Estate Officer for allotting him another undisputed plot. The opposite party issued a letter dated 27.05.2016 that dispute with the farmers had come to an end by giving them land in pooling scheme. The complainant again wrote a letter dated 20.04.2017, asking the status and feasibility of the plot and for re-scheduling the instalments. The opposite party, vide letter dated 05.01.2018, informed to take physical possession, by getting layout plan sanctioned but the letter was silent in respect of interest on delayed instalments and its rescheduling. The complainant took plea that plot No.2442, allotted to him was in dispute between the opposite party and the farmers as such the opposite party was not entitled to charge interest and any surcharge, for delayed instalments. The complainant has already deposited substantial amount of Rs.51/- l
