IMPORTANT POINT
An allottee has the right to choose a refund over an alternative plot when possession is not delivered, reinforcing the principle of contractual freedom.

JUDGMENT :

(Vinod S. Bhardwaj. J.) :

The present petition challenges the award dated 15.11.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed in case no.168 by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Sonipat, whereby the application under Section 22C of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short the 1987 Act) filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed and the respondent developer has been directed to allow the petitioner to choose a plot from the available plots, of same size and in the same location, at the initially agreed price instead of directing a refund of the entire deposited amount, along with interest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had booked a residential plot at TDI City, Kundli, District Sonipat in the project developed by respondents no.2 and 3 in the name and style of Tuscan Royale, measuring 250 sq. yards bearing plot no.A-1 Block, Tuscan City in Tuscan Royale City at the basic sale price of Rs.37,500/- per sq. yard. Registration form was submitted by the petitioner on 14.05.2012 and a sum of Rs.18,75,000/- was duly deposited. A letter of allotment dated 05.02.2013 for plot no. A-1-104 was stated to have been issued to the petitioner but the same was actually never delivered to the petitioner. The same was actually collected by the petitioner only in November, 2013. While raising objections to the said letter of allotment, having been issued with terms and conditions at variance that what had been agreed to, the petitioner none-the-less deposited an additional amount of Rs.14,06,250/- on 05.12.2013 in compliance of the conditions of the letter of allotment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even though, as per the registration form, the letter of allotment was to be issued within a period of six months from the date of application, however, the above said ante dated letter of allotment was actually delivered to the petitioner only on 02.11.2013, i.e. much after the said period.

3. The petitioner waited for a further period of four years for the progress to be made and possession to be offered by the developer, however, no such development took place but a communication dated 20.06.2016 was sent to the petitioner, as per which the respondents expressed their inability to hand over possession of the plot to the petitioner and gave him the following options:-

“offer of taking over an alternate ready for possession unit in the same project and registration of sale deed within 15 days of completion of all formalities;

Or

Adjustment of entire deposit in any of our other projects, in a unit of your choice.”

4. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner inquired whether the respondents are in a position to offer possession of the plot of a choice of the petitioner or else, the amount deposited by him be refunded to him along with interest. No action was however initiated on the said request, whereupon an application under Section 22(C) of the 1987 Act was filed by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

5. In the reply filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the respondents admitted that they were unable to complete the development works as some miscreants had filed a suit and therefore they were unable to offer the possession to the petitioner. The relevant extract of the reply filed by the respondents reads as under:-

“4-5. That in reply to paras No.4-5 of the application it is submitted that the development work at the site could not be carried out due to hindrance caused by some local miscreants who are obstructing in the development work of project. There is also litigation pending between the respondent /company and above said miscreants of the village Nangal Kalan District Sonepat. However said suit has been dismissed but an appeal is still pending in the court of Sh. Ajay Tewtia Ld. Addl. District Judge, Sonepat, however there is no injunction order prevailing but despite that said miscreants of village are causing hindrance in the development work