G.D. Gupta vs HUDA

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the common Order dated 24.09.2009 of the State Commission in appeals no. 1545 of 2002 and no. 2708 of 2002 arising out of the Order dated 07.06.2002 of the District Commission in complaint no. 365 of 2000.

No one appears.

We note that the petitioner has been continuously absent on the previous number of dates. This revision petition is pending since 2009 i.e. for about 13 years now. As such we deem it appropriate to dispose it on the basis of the record.

We have perused the record, including inter alia the Order dated 07.06.2002 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 24.09.2009 of the State Commission and the petition.

The matter relates to a plot allotted to the complainant (the petitioner herein) by the HUDA (the respondent herein). Principally, three issues, one, the extension fee payable by the complainant in respect of non-completion of the construction on the allotted plot in the stipulated time-period, two, the complainant’s duty towards execution of the conveyance deed, and, three, the amount if any charged in excess from the complainant by the HUDA, were involved in the dispute.

The District Commission made its appraisal of the case and for reasons given decided the first two issues against the complainant. In respect of the third issue it directed the HUDA to prepare a fresh statement of accounts as per the terms and conditions of the allotment and in case any amount was found to have been charged in excess to refund the same to the complainant within 30 days. Its findings on the said three issues have been summed-up in paras 7, 8 and 9 of its Order, which are reproduced below:

Admittedly, the possession of the plot was offered to the complainant by OP vide letter Annexure O2 dated 6.8.1991 and vide Annexure O3, physical possession was handed over to him on 18.10.1991. So, the complainant was bound to complete the construction upto 17.10.1993 i.e. within 2 years as per clause 18 of the allotment letter Ex C4. Further, vide notice Annexure O22 dated 21.6.1996, the complainant has appeared before OP-2 on 4.7.1996 and sought extension of time for completing the construction so also the complaint is liable to pay the extension fee.  Annexure O24 is the photocopy of affidavit dated 17.3.1997 of Shiv Kumar GPA holder of the complainant wherein the said GPA has deposed that extension fee for the year 1996 at the rate of Rs 10/- per Sq. meter has been deposited and undertook to pay the future extension fee also. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant is liable to pay the extension fee for non-completion of the construction over the plot in question and OP has rightly charged the same from him.

As regards his second grouse relating to execution of conveyance deed on the stamp-paper, it is argued that there was no such policy at the time of allotment of the plot in the year 1984, so the changed policy is not applicable to the case of the complainant. The complainant sought the refund of the amount spent by him on stamp papers. This argument of the complainant is without any merit. Admittedly, in the year 1984 the plot in question was provisionally allotted to the wife of the complainant namely Usha Rani and the same was finally allotted to her in the year 1990. As per clause no. 13 of the allotment letter Ex C4, the complainant is liable to get the conveyance deed executed in respect of the plot in question after payment of 100 percent of the tentative price of the plot by incurring charges of registration and stamp duty. Further, no immovable property can be transferred in favour of any person valuing more than Rs. 100/- if it is not registered as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. As the plot in question was sold by OP to the complainant, so for the purpose of transferring the title over the said plot in favour of the complainant, it is mandatory for the complainant to get the conveyance deed executed in his favour. Therefore, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP on this score also and this plea of the complainant is repelled.

So far as the third grouse of the complainant that OP has charged excess amount from him is concerned, the complainant has placed on record copy of his own prepared statement of accounts Ex.C12 showing the said excess amount. There is no rebuttal to this statement on behalf of OP. In this statement of the account the complainant has calculated simple interest @10% per annum as per condition No.6 & 7 of the allotment letter. As the OP has not placed on record any statement of account, so the difference in the amount may be be due to different rate of interest and on account of charging of compound interest by the OP from the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the OP to prepare a fresh statement of account within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this order and refund any amount found in excess of the amount charged by the OP from the complainant. While preparing the fresh statement of account, the OP shall charge the simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of offer of possession till the date payment of due Instalment as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Therefore, we direct that in case any amount as alleged by the complainant vide E.X.C12 or any other amount is found charged in excess from the complainant, OP shall refund the same to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.

The complainant and the HUDA appealed individually before the State Commission. The State Commission decided both appeals together vide its common Order dated 24.09.2009.  It concurred with the District Commission. It agreed that there was no deficiency on the part of the HUDA in charging extension fee for non-construction and in respect of the complainant’s duty towards execution of the conveyance deed. It also found that the direction made in respect of preparing a fresh statement of accounts and refunding the excess if any to the complainant to be apt and lawful. It dismissed the HUDA’s contention by observing that this direction only makes the HUDA liable to pay any excess amount if it had been charged against the terms and conditions of the allotment and therefore there was no legal infirmity in the said direction. (“…This direction only makes the OPs liable to pay any excess amount, if charged against the terms and conditions of the allotment and therefore, we find no legal infirmity in this direction given by the learned District Forum….”). It also made an observation about the complainant trying to mislead the bench and dragging the HUDA into unwarranted litigation and imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- on him ( “…we find no merit in the appeal filed by Sh. G.D. Gupta bearing no. 1545 of 2002 (RBT No. 1142 of 2008, who has also tried to mislead the Bench and has dragged the OPs into an unwarranted litigation and consequently, this appeal filed by the complainant is also dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the OPs….”)

A perusal of the Orders of the two fora below shows that the same have been passed after aptly weighing the evidence and with sound reasons recorded.  We find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned, as such we find no good ground forthcoming to interfere in revision.

The petition is bereft of worth and deserves to be dismissed as such.

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