ORDER

The EA in the present case is for execution of decree in RP/1404/1999, which was disposed off vide order dated 19.12.2002, the relevant order is reproduced below:

“Dated: 19.12.2002

ORDER

This Commission has already taken a view in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. R.P. Chawla (Revision Petition No. 547 & 548 of 1997) that in the case the plot originally allotted cannot be given for any reason and an alternative plot is to be provided to the allottee, the same shall be at the rate at which the original plot was allotted to him. Keeping that in view, this Revision Petition will be disposed of in the above terms.”

2. The possession of the plot in question (alternate plot allotted in 2008) i.e. plot no. 337 QP was taken over by the decree holder on 03.04.2023 in compliance of earlier orders of this Commission (order dated 07.06.2023 refers). However, the conveyance deed was still not signed and No Dues Certificate (NDC) was not issued by JD on the ground that an amount of Rs.4,14,000/- is payable by the DH as on 01.05.2023. Vide order dated 07.06.2023 directions were issued to JD to execute the conveyance deed subject to DH depositing Rs.4.14 lakhs in NCDRC, without prejudice to the rights of both sides as to whether the said amount is payable by DH to JD or not. Finally the conveyance deed has also been done and registered some time during January 2024 in pursuance to various orders of this Commission (order dated 03.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 refers).

3. Hence, the only issue remaining to be decided in the present case is with respect to liability of the DH to pay Rs.4.14 lakh to JD (calculated by JD up to 01.05.2023), which has already been deposited in the Registry. During the hearing on 05.06.2024 learned counsel for JD categorically stated that this amount of Rs.4.14 lakh is only towards one item viz. the extension fee, which is levied as per rules of the JD authority for non-construction/delayed construction beyond the permissible period, which in the present case is two years from the date of offer of possession, and there are no other dues pending from the DH. JD vide their affidavit filed on 19.05.2023 has placed on record certain calculations of the amounts payable. A perusal of these calculations show that Rs.4,14,223/- is the amount towards extension fee, which has been charged with effect from the year 2010 when the annual rate was Rs.20 per sq. meter. The plot in question being of the size 285.95 sq. meter. Later on the rate of the extension fee got enhanced to Rs.60 per sq. meter in 2013, further to Rs.90 per sq. meter in 2016, Rs.125 in the year 2019, Rs.150 in the year 2022 and Rs.180 in the year 2023. Hence the total amount of Rs.4,14,223/- as per this calculation is towards extension fee only from the year 2010 to 2023. The contention of the JD herein is that the possession of the plot in question was handed over to the DH on 20.05.2008. However no such possession letter/document is on record. It is seen that letter dated 20.05.2008 to which our attention was drawn during the hearing is not the possession letter, neither it is the revised allotment letter. It is a demand notice for additional price. As per the terms and conditions of the original allotment letter issued on 08.11.1985, the allottee has to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession after getting the plans of the proposed building approved from the competent authority in accordance with the regulations governing the errection of the building (clause 18). Neither the revised allotment letter with respect to plot no. 337 QP is on record nor any document evidencing possession of the said plot 337 QP in May, 2008, as claimed by the JD, is on record. However, it is admitted by both sides that in accordance with the orders dated 19.12.2002 (decree in question) the alternate allotment is at the same rate and will be governed by the same terms and conditions as that of the original allotment letter