Estate Officer, Huda vs Rishi Tayal & Ors

Mr. Vivek Gupta, learned counsel is present for the petitioner / development authority. No one appears for the respondents / complainants .

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(1)(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 18.02.2009 of the State Commission in appeal no. 771 of 2002 arising out of the Order dated 13.02.2002 of the District Commission in complaint no. 1164 of 1999.

3 . A perusal of the record shows that allotments of the subject residential plots in Sector 14 (Part) Hisar were made by the development authority in favour of the complainants in the year 1986.

Offers of possession to the complainants were made by the development authority in the years 1997 and 1998.

The complainants approached the District Commission in 1999 seeking withdrawal of the offers of possession.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 13.02.2002 held that: “The development works are continuing. The respondent has failed to develop the area within reasonable time. The offer of possession made by the respondent regarding the complainants in regard to their plots seems to be issued in hasty manner without developing the area fully.”. And it accordingly ordered that: “So in the foregoing circumstances the complaint of the complainants is accepted and the offer of possession by the respondent regarding their plots is hereby quashed and the respondent is directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum to each complainant on the entire deposit amount from the date of their respective offer of possession till the fresh offer of possession made by the respective after completing the development works.”.

The development authority appealed before the State Commission.

The State Commission vide its Order dated 18.02.2009 dismissed the appeal, holding that: “In view of these observations of the learned District Forum, it is quite evident that the area had not been developed by the OP in a manner that the complainants could start construction of the houses on the plots allotted to them and therefore, we agree with the learned District Forum that such an offer of possession has really no meaning. Consequently, we agree with the direction given by the learned District Forum that the OP pays interest @12% per annum to the complainant from the date of the offer of possession till a new offer of possession is made after fully developing the area in all respects on their deposits. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit and the impugned order is upheld.”.

The development authority then preferred the instant revision petition before this Commission in 2009.

On 31.08.2009 at the stage of admission the delay of 46 days in filing the petition was condoned and the operation of the impugned Order was stayed.

4 . Learned counsel for the development authority submits that the offers of possession were made way back in 1997 and 1998 i.e. about 24–25 years ago. The matter went into litigation before the District Commission in 1999. The District Commission made its Order in 2002. In 2002 itself the development authority preferred appeal before the State Commission. During the pendency of the appeal the operation of the impugned Order of the District Commission remained stayed. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in 2009. In 2009 itself the development authority filed the present revision petition before this Commission. The operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission was stayed by this Commission vide its Order dated 31.08.2009, and the stay continues till date. The submission is that, after the District Commission made its Order in 2002, the operation of its Order remained stayed in the litigation before the State Commission and this Commission and accordingly the question of issuance of fresh offers of possession in place of the earlier offers made in 1997 and 1998 did not occasion.

Learned counsel further submits that in the efflux of time from 2002 onwards till today i.e. 2022 all the 28 respondents have already acted on the offers of possession made in 1997 and 1998 and have made construction on their respective residential plots and concomitantly the project area has also been satisfactorily developed. The submission is that the complainants are enjoying peaceful possession of their respective plots with construction thereon in an area which has been alongside satisfactorily developed.

Learned counsel draws attention to this Commission’s Order dated 28.07.2015 wherein it is recorded that the respondent no. 24 filed an application stating that he did not want to contest the revision petition and the revision petition was allowed against him and his name was deleted from the array of the parties. He also draws attention to this Commission’s Order dated 10.05.2018 wherein it is recorded that the respondent no. 1 sent a letter stating that he was not interested to contest this case any further. He further draws attention to this Commission’s Order dated 20.11.2018 wherein it is recorded that the respondent no. 20, who also appeared as the AR for the respondent no. 12, and the respondent no. 16, present in person, submitted that they wanted to withdraw their complaints and also stated that they have made construction on the subject plots, and the said three respondents were allowed to withdraw their complaints. Learned counsel also draws attention to the fact that the respondent no. 1, who had sent a letter stating that he was not interested to contest this case any further, was also the AR of respondents no. 8, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 28 who are not present today and have not been appearing on earlier occasions also. Learned counsel further draws attention to the fact that the respondents no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 17, 23 and 25 are being proceeded against ex parte which implies that they are not bothering to contest the case. He draws attention to all the proceedings before this Commission from 11.04.2019 onwards till today i.e. 10.03.2022, wherein no one has appeared for any of the respondents even on one date. The submission is that the respondents have already acted upon the offers of possession made in 1997 and 1998, the project area is satisfactorily developed, they have made construction on their respective residential flats and as is evident from the withdrawal of a few respondents from the lis and from the fact of a few respondents not bothering to pursue the matter and from the perpetuating absence of the remaining respondents for a protracted period including today, it is reasonably deducible and manifest that the respondents are no longer interested in pursuing the case being in peaceful enjoyment of their subject plots with the area having been satisfactorily developed.

Learned counsel emphasizes that when the offers of possession made in the year 1997 and 1998 have been acted upon by the complainants, the question of now issuing fresh offers of possession can not arise. He also emphasizes that on date the area stands satisfactorily developed and there appears no one to controvert or raise any opposition or contention to the contrary on behalf of any of the respondents.

Learned counsel argues that it has to be appreciated that the improvement trust is a government development authority. Government development authorities in general adopt a system of cross-subsidy whereby the cost of land inclusive of the cost of development is reasonably subsidized for residential, industrial and institutional allotments, and the difference is made up by commercial auctions. The submission is that somewhat subsidized residential plots were allotted to the complainants and the area has been satisfactorily developed over the years in the efflux of time. He also submits that the development authority functions in accordance with the administrative, technical and financial rules of the State Government, its functionaries are accountable, its accounts are subject to audit. He emphasizes that the respondents have not been differently treated or discriminated against in relation to other similarly situate persons.

5 . We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also considered the Orders of the two fora below in the light of the same.

Seeing that a few respondents have already withdrawn, that a few are being proceeded against ex parte , that none of the remaining respondents are appearing to pursue the matter from 2019 onwards, that offers of possession made in 1997 and 1998 have been acted upon, that due to stay(s) granted in litigation the occasion to issue fresh offers of possession could not arise, that construction has already been made on the allotted plots, that the area has been satisfactorily developed over the period of time, that the respondents have not been differently treated or discriminated against in relation to other similarly situate persons, we do not feel that as the things obtain on date fresh offers of possession are now required or necessary and the question of giving interest on the deposited amounts from the dates of the offers of possession made in 1997 and 1998 till the dates of fresh offers has now become infructuous and redundant. We also feel that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case compensation by way of interest on the deposited amounts or in any other manner is now not warranted are called for. The scale of equity has been met with the respondents having made their construction on their respective residential plots and the area having been satisfactorily developed.

As such the whole dispute appears to have been rendered infructuous and redundant and does not call for any further adjudication.

We but make it clear that this Order is being made in the peculiar and specific facts of this case alone, keeping in perspective inter alia that the offers of possession were made way back in 1997 / 1998, that they have been acted upon, that the area is now satisfactorily developed, and that there has been considerable efflux of time from 1997 / 1998 till now i.e. 2022, and also that the respondents no longer appear to be interested in pursuing the matter, considering further that the respondents have not been differently treated or discriminated against in relation to other similarly situated persons, and specifically and significantly keeping in view that the dispute relates to a government development authority which allotted somewhat subsidized residential plots. As such this case shall not be treated a precedent.

We may hasten to clarify that in instances of private builders / developers and in instances of government builders / developers who do not provide subsidized residential allotments this case can not and shall not be relevant or applicable at all as a precedent. Even in case of government development authorities which may have provided somewhat subsidized residential allotments, also, unreasonable delay in developing the area and making premature or unripe offers of possession when the area is not satisfactorily developed may and could constitute ‘deficiency in service’ and / or ‘unfair trade practice’ depending on the given facts and specificities of the particular case. As such they, too, cannot take repose or shelter behind this Order. This Order has been made in the peculiar and specific facts of this case alone and it shall not be treated a precedent either by a private builder / developer or by a government development authority which may or may not have provided subsidized residential allotments.

Disposed with observations made in paras 6 , 7 and 8 above.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.