H.R.CHOPRA vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS order shall dispose of two complaint Nos. 87 of 1997, H.R. Chopra v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and 88 of 1997, Ashwani Kumar and Company v. HUDA, as factual and legal position of both the cases is identical.

ACCORDING to the complainant, in nutshell, HUDA developed about 30 residential and 12 industrial sectors in Faridabad and had sold about 65,000/- residential plots and about 2200 industrial plots during the last one decade. At the time of issuing letter of allotment of residential plots HUDA has been invariably incorporated Clause No. 14 prohibiting the allottees not to put the plot/residential house for being used for any commercial purpose or to be let out for any commercial activities. Despite all this HUDA could not check commercial activities, which gave rise to a public interest litigation against them before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. ACCORDING to the statement made by Mr. R.L. Rao, Estate Officer, HUDA before the Hon''ble Supreme Court out of 65,000 houses in Faridabad. 3,500 dwelling units are identified as violators of HUDA Act; meaning thereby that HUDA by their act of commission and omission had been permitting commercial activities in the dwelling units of HUDA in an illegal manner. This adversely affected the business interest of plot holders. Despite all this, HUDA advertised auction of commercial plots in its various sectors including Sector 15-A as per open auction of free hold commercial plots on 26th March, 1996. It was also announced by HUDA that all necessary facilities like construction of roads, pavements, parks, toilets, sanitation and water works as well as electrification in and around the commercial plots would be provided. The complainants participated in the auction bid and was successful in purchasing commercial shop-cum-flat site Nos. 68 and 67 respectively in Sector 15-A, Part-II, Faridabad and purchased the said sites in open auction for Rs. 34,05,000/- and Rs. 32,00,000/- respectively. Out of this amount 10% of the sale price i.e. Rs. 3,40,500/- and Rs. 3,20,000/- was adjusted at the time of allotment and the balance amount of Rs. 5,10,750/- and Rs. 4,80,000/- being 15% of the bid amount was deposited in May, 1996.

Though thereupon the complainants were entitled to the possession of the plots as per Clause 6 of the letter of allotment which provided that "the possession of the plot /building maybe taken immediately after making payment of the balance 15% amount as demanded.". Despite repeated reminders vacant physical possession of the plots has not delivered to the complainants so far. However in the meantime on 17th May, 1996 the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad issued a letter, which is as under : "As per orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India dated 10.5.1996, the construction activity around Badkhal and Surajkund tourist complex within 5 km. radius has been banned. It is, therefore, ordered no building plans should be sanctioned within the prescribed area in respective zones till further orders."

IN the meanwhile the complainants learnt that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has stopped construction activity in 5 km. radius of Badkhal Lake. Since Sector 15-A, Faridabad comes within the said radius, the complainants wrote another letter dated 27th May, 1996 in this regard. It is further submitted that this matter is reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1977=III (1996) CLT 93 (SC) in the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of INdia, whereas the Hon''ble Supreme Court after considering the expert body report ordered the closure of all mines within 5 km. radius from Badkhal lake and Surajkund. IN the meantime the opposite party No. 2, Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad issued a letter dated 30th May, 1996 informing the complainants that the possession of the plots can be taken by them or their authorised representative on the date and time specified therein and directing its subordinate authority to deliver the possession of the site in dispute to the complainants. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 15.6.1996 informing the respondent authority that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has banned construction activity in radius of 5 km. of Badkhal Lake in May, 1996 and the plots of the complainants are situated within the said radius and that HUDA authority is guilty of unfair practice by concealing the material facts and is offering possession without the right to construct. Though the HUDA authorities ought to have returned the amounts of Rs. 8,51,250/- and Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest to the complainants as it failed in its obligation to provide standard designs/plans for the construction of the building despite repeated requests by the complainants in their various letters, yet needful was not done. On the other hand, HUDA issued further a notice dated 22nd November, 1996 demanding the deposit of another amounts of 4,49,075/- and Rs. 4,22,038/- respectively. The complainants informed the HUDA that this was not possible and rather claimed refund of their amounts already deposited by them with interest, but HUDA was adamant in making additional demands and has issued further notice also for additional demand. All this, according to the complainants, amounted to deficiency in service on the part of HUDA and the complainants suffered huge monetary loss on this account as they cannot proceed further with the construction of the building material lying on the sites has become useless. On that basis, the complainants claimed refund of Rs. 8,51,250/- and Rs. 8,00,000/- respectively, alongwith Rs. 3,60,000/- by way of loss of profit and goodwill, etc. till the filng of the complaints and have also demanded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- per month thereafter, as they have been prevented from constructing the plots due to non-sanctioning of the plans with a further compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/ - as the amount spent by them for purchasing the building material.

IN their reply, the opposite parties have almost admitted the factual position but have sought to justify their action on the ground that the commercial activities in the residential houses have been continuing due to pendency of litigation as the landlords have obtained stay orders from various Courts. It is further stated that the necessary development projects have already been completed and the adequate facilities have since been provided to the allottees. Thus, in nut-shell, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice attributable to them. The parties filed their respective affidavits by way of evidence as well as in rebuttal alongwith other documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in their pleadings. We have gone through the record and have heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length. Having done that we are of the considered view that the complainants have successfully established deficiency in service on the part of HUDA and their complaints deserve to be allowed. In fact the complainants are entitled in law as a matter of right after the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, reported as (supra) whereafter construction activities by the complainants would in fact amount to contempt of the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Consequently, we have no hesitation in allowing the complaints and granting the reliefs as prayed for by them by directing HUDA, to refund to the complainants (i) the amounts deposited by them so far alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment, (ii) to pay to the complainants the damages for the loss of business and other monetary losses suffered by them @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, (iii) to pay compensation for the loss in rebuilding material, etc. suffered by the complainants at the rate of Rs. 50,000/-, (iv) to restrain HUDA from making any further demands by way of extension fee or penalty, etc., and (v) the complainants shall also be entitled to costs of litigation, which are quantified as Rs. 2,000/- in each case. All these directions shall be complied with by HUDA within 2 months of receipt of the order. Complaint allowed. ______________