JAGMOHAN SINGH CHOUDHARY vs ESTATE OFFICER, U.T.CHANDIGARH

THE complainants members of a family were allotted a residential plot No. 2120 measuring 528 sq. yards (approximately) in Sector 38/C, Chandigarh for Rs. 60,25,000/- as successful bidders vide allotment letter dated 24.2.1997 (Annexure C/1). A sum of Rs. 15,06,250/- was deposited being 25% by the complainants within the prescribed period. Subsequently on 28.9.1997 the complainants intimated their inability to deposit further instalments because unavoidably one of their sons was in Defence Services and could not assist. Since the respondent has not refunded 10% of the deposit, the claim put, forward in para No. 5 of the complaint is briefly described as under : (i)(i) Total amount recoverable Rs. 15,06,250/- (ii) Interest on the said amount@ 18% from 17.12.1997 till date. Rs. 4,00,000/- (iii) Mental harassment charges Rs.10;000/- (iv) Litigation expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 19,26,250/-

ON behalf of the respondent, a reply has been filed wherein it has been averred that under the Chandigarh Leasehold and Sites Building Rules, 1973 such complaints should not be entertained here. The complainant gave a bid for such a huge amount without assessing his own resources and the respondent would have to suffer loss and incur expenditure in the entire process and thus renders the claim inadmissible. The Estate Officer has forfeited 10% of the premium, ground rent and interest till the date of cancellation. The complainants were only entitled to the balance but as per statement of account, the sum of Rs. 2,76,204/- is still due from the complainants on account of interest and ground rent for which demand has been made by the respondent on 28.1.1999. Our attention has been drawn to para 4 of the affidavit of Shri S.K. Sharma, Assistant Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh dated 11.11.1999 and it is reproduced as under : "4. That the complainants have without assessing the sources of income have given a bid for the site and has considerably failed to perform their part of obligation and they made a request of surrender of site. Since there is no provision of surrender of site in the Lease Hold Rules and in this manner the Estate Officer is competent to charge 10% of forfeiture of consideration and Ground Rent and Interest till the date of cancellation."

The first instalment in this case was due on 17.12.1997 but prior to that the complainant made a request of surrender of the plot on 22.8.1997 and he is entitled to refund In this regard, learned Counsel for the complainants has relied on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in S.S. Gill v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1999 (3) RCR (Civil) 101, which also relates to a residential plot of a nearby Sector where the forfeiture of the amount deposited was held unjustified for not adopting the required procedure. In the case now in hand, on the request of the complainants, allotment of the site was cancelled and intimation regarding it was conveyed on 28.7.1998 and process concluded. The details find mention in para No. 5 of the affidavit dated 11.11.1999.

The learned Government Pleader has made an attempt to seek advantage of judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sukpal Singh Kang & Ors., v. Chandigarh Administration, Civil Writ Petition No. 3370 of 1992, decided on 16.10.1998, and has stressed that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed. This contention does not depict the true picture. In the aforesaid judgment, the respondents gave an undertaking that they would provide the amenities by the end of the year 1999 which remained unprovided at the sites in question. The aforesaid assurance was considered sufficient to allay the fear of the petitioners. In that case, the auction and allotment related to the year 1990 whereas in the case now in hand, the allotment was dated 24.2.1997 and the complainants surrendered the plot on 28.9.1997 and the aforesaid proposal of surrender has also been accepted and it is not a case that the complainant made any construction or was able to actually utilise the plot at all.

IN the circumstances of the case here the complainant has come with clean hands and it cannot be said that forfeiture beyond 10% of the price was justified at all. Since the request for surrender was made even before the first instalment became due, the claim for lease money or any other penalty was not justified and the ground rent would be recoverable only till 28.7.1998. The plea of the respondent that a sum of Rs. 2,76,204/- was still outstanding against the complainant is not justified in the circumstances of the case and is rejected. The conclusion is that the complaint mainly succeeds and the respondents are directed to refund the deposit after deducting 10% of the price of the unit and not merely 10% out of the 25% deposited. The complainant is also held entitled to interest at the rate of 18% from 28.7.1998 till realization. Complaint disposed of.