KRISHAN LAL vs Chief Administrator

THIS case stands virtually concluded against the complainant, both on the issues of fact and law, by the earlier detailed order of this Commission in the analogous complaint No. 6 of 1991 ''Ramesh Chand of Panchkula v. Chief Administrator HUDA, Manimajra'' decided on 21st of January, 1992. Consequently, the facts and the controversy herein deserves notice with relative brevity.

MR. Krishan Lal, complainant is the attorney of his five other co-complainants who were partners with him in the purchase of shop-cum-office site No. 126 in Sector 5, Panchkula. The auction was held on the 12th of July, 1990. It is the complainant''s case that at that time whilst announcing the terms and conditions of the sale, it was made clear that the same shall be subject to the general terms and conditions as contained in the form ''C'' of the allotment letter appended to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Disposal of Lands and Building Regulation) 1978 (hereinafter called the Regulation). This was also because of the mandate of Regulation 6(2) aforesaid. It is alleged that the completion of all the development works namely roads, electric, sewerage and drinking water lines and parking etc. is the condition precedent which the Estate Officer is to perform before offering possession of the site to the allottees. The complainant''s bid being the highest for S.C.O site No. 126 was accepted by the Presiding Officer of the auction sale subject to the approval of the Chief Administrator, HUDA and the complainants paid 10% of the bid money amounting to Rs. 4,15,500/- on the spot. Subsequently the Estate Officer, HUDA issued the allotment letter Annexure P-2 dated the 21st of November, 1990 in the complainant''s favour. It is the complainant''s case that this allotment letter varied the material terms and conditions announced at the time of the auction and were also not in identical conformity with form ''CC'' prescribed by the Regulation. According to the complainant because of this the allotment letter should be treated as a counter offer made by the Estate Officer and the petitioners as such had every right to judge their financial capacity in the context of the change financial perspective. Consequently, they rejected this alleged counter offer (i.e. the allotment order P-2) and submitted a petition Annexure P-3 dated the 14th December, 1990 to the Estate Officer seeking the refund of the bid money paid by them within a fortnight from the receipt of this petition. However, the Estate Officer vide Annexure P-4 dated the 7th of January, 1991 held that in contravention of the terms and conditions of the allotment order they had failed to make payment of 15% of the cost price (Rs. 6,23,250/-) within 30 days from the date thereof and consequently in exercise of the powers under Section 6(2) of the regulation, he cancelled the allotment of the site to the complainants and forfeited the deposit of the 10% of bid money made earlier. The complainants thereafter protested against the said action and sought the refund of the bid money on the ground that in some other cases in different sectors such a refund had been allowed. Allegations of unfair practice and arbitrary action have been laid against the HUDA and the relief sought is the refund of the bid money and further compensation for the mental torture and harassment of the complainant. In the written statement filed on behalf of the HUDA a number of preliminary objections were raised to which reference is unnecessary because they were not pressed before us. On merits the broad factual ground of the complainants having bid for the site and paid the 10% of the bid money is admitted, but in Paragraph 3, it is pointedly submitted that the allotment in favour of the complainants had to be cancelled as per condition No. 4 of the allotment order and further it is categorically asserted that the development works in the area had been completed before 12th of July, 1990. Regulation 6(2) is invoked for the forfeiture of the bid amount and the cancellation of the site. It has been asserted that there is no material change in the terms of the acceptance or in the allotment letter from those announced at the time of the auction. The action of the authorities is strenuously defended and it is pointed out in Para 11 of the written statement that the allottees of the site mentioned in the corresponding para of complaint had duly filed appeals before the Chief Administrator HUDA as provided under the Act who had passed the order to refund the amount on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which are irrelevant in the case of the complainants.

In the replication filed on behalf of the complainants whilst reiterating the earlier stand, their case is pointedly sought to be rested on the ground that the Estate Officer made alterations from the prescribed form ''CC'' appended to the regulations for the allotment letter. It is repeatedly asserted that no unilateral alteration could be made in condition No. 6 of form ''CC'' or adding condition No. 23 to the impugned allotment order. The focus of the replication is sharply directed to the point that the allotment letter issued by the Estate Officer has to be an exact carbon copy of the form ''CC'' prescribed by Regulation 6(2) and no change can be made therein.

IN support of the complainant''s case he merely rested content by filing his own evidence by way of his affidavit (wherein again the primal grievance was the alleged unilateral alteration in the allotment letter from the prescribed form ''CC'' under Regulation 6(2) and relied on the documents annexed to the complaint. In defence the Estate Officer, HUDA Shri K.S. Guilani placed his affidavit on record to controvert the complainant''s case. Therein apart from stoutly denying that any changes have been made from the terms and conditions of the original contract, it was further averred is follows: - "It is also further denied that the answering respondent allotted SCO Site No. 126, Sector 5, Panchkula without ensuring the completion of all development work in the area according to Master Plan of the project. It is further submitted that virtually all development took place according to master plan of HUDA before making the offer of the allotment of the site. According to master plan of HUDA, the development work of water supply, sewerage roads and electricity were completed as on 30.10.1986, 14.7.1987, 29.1.1987 vide Annexures R-1 to R-15."

To support the categoric averments aforesaid of the Estate Officer, copies of the relevant documents R-1 to R-15 pertaining to the completion of all the relevant material development works were placed on the record, the authenticity of these documents was not seriously challenged on behalf of the complainant nor was any request made for the cross-examination of Shri K.S. Guilani, Estate Officer, HUDA. The complainant merely filed a counter affidavit for rebutting the affidavit of Estate Officer wherein again the primal grievance was that he was under a statutory obligation to issue the allotment letter exactly in form ''CC'' a copy of which was attached as Annexure A-1 to the affidavit. With regard to the documents Annexure R-1 to R-9, it was baldly stated that they had no direct bearing on the point at issue and that they did not portray and establish the completion of all the development works by the cut-off dates.

BEFORE coming to the primal argument of Mr. B.R. Gupta the learned Counsel for the complainant, it is necessary to clear the decks with regard to one factual aspect. This pertains to the question whether at the time of the issuing of the allotment letter the development works in the area had been completed or not. Now a bare reading of the complaint would indicate that barring a passing suggestion about the liability of the Estate Officer to ensure the completion of the development works no firm averment or allegation at all was made in this pleading itself that at the material time there was any serious lapse in the completion of the development works. No specific allegation as to which aspect thereof namely whether the roads, electric lines, sewerage, drinking water or parking places etc. was particularly incomplete has been made. On the other hand in the written statement filed on behalf of the HUDA, it was in terms reiterated categorically in Para 3 that the development works were completed by the 12th of July, 1990. As already noticed the complainant led no evidence worth the name on the specific point barring his self-serving affidavit virtually repeating the pleadings in the complaint. On the other hand the Estate Officer Shri K.S. Guilani in his affidavit specifically deposed with regard to the development works and in detail pointed out the dates and months in the year 1986, 1987 etc. on which the material development works of water supply, sewerage, road and electricity had already been completed. Apparently being on a weak ground, the complainant did not even claim or chose to cross-examine Shri K.S. Guilani. His official testimony, therefore, remains unchallenged and worthy of acceptance. Not only that he supported his solemn affirmation on this point with unchallenged documents Annexures R-1 to R-15. These again provided total corroboration to the stand that the material development works were completed long before the time, the allotment order Annexure P-2 was issued on the 21st of November, 1990. Consequently, on the present record the conclusion is inescapable that on the said date the development works were already complete and the complainant has not been at all able to show anything to the contrary. Indeed the weight of evidence herein lends credence to the stand of the opposite parties, that allegation of the development works being not complete is a mere after-thought which has been raised in support of a crumbling case. The aforesaid factual conclusion brings us to the main legal argument of Mr. Gupta in the case which indeed was virtually the solitary one which he projected with some vehemence, Relying basically on Regulation 6(2), he contended that the Estate Officer was bound to issue the allotment letter P-2 as a carbon copy of form ''CC'' alone. No unilateral change therein could be made by him. It was submitted that in the present case the allotment letter aforesaid issued in favour of the complainant contained condition No. 6 which was at variance with the corresponding condition in form ''CC'' and also an added condition No. 23 giving the figures of the principal amount due and interest etc. had been made. The core of the submission was that any alteration whatsoever made in condition No. 6 in the allotment letter was, therefore, fatal to the opposite parties case and absolved the complainant of all obligations under the contract. In appraising the aforesaid argument, it becomes wholly unnecessary to retread the same beaten ground again. It deserves highlighting that the identical argument was raised by Mr. B.R. Gupta himself on behalf of the complainant in complaint Case No. 6 of 1991 ''Ramesh Chand of Panchkula v. Chief Administrator, HUDA, Manimajra (U.T) Chandigarh & Others''. That case equally pertained to a similar auction by the Opposite Party and the issuance of a subsequent allotment letter. In point of fact in both these cases Mr. B.R. Gupta was the Counsel for the complainant and the common legal issues were argued together on the same date.

DEALING with the aforesaid argument in ''Ramesh Chand of Panchkula v. Chief Administrator, HUDA, Manimajra (U.T) Chandigarh & Others'' this Commission has made observations and conclusion which deserve notice in extenso even at the cost of some repetition. In order to maintain the homogeneity of this order, it is necessary to reproduce them as under : - "11. In order to appreciate the submission aforesaid, it is obviously apt to turn to the provisions of Regulation 6(2) around which the whole controversy revolves. This may, therefore, be noticed in extenso at the very outset: - 6(1): In the case of sale or lease by auction, the price/premium to be charged shall be such reserved price/premium as may be determined taking into consideration the various factors as indicated in Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 4 or any higher amount determined as a result of bidding in open auction. 6(2): Ten percent of the highest bid shall be paid on the spot by the highest bidder in cash or by means of a demand draft in the manner specified in the Sub-regulation) of Regulation 5. The successful bidder shall be issued allotment letter in form ''CC or ''C-H'' by registered post, and another 15 percent of the bid accepted shall be payable by the successful bidder in the manner indicated, within 30 days of the date of allotment letter conveying acceptance of the bid by the Chief Administrator; failing which the 10 percent amount already deposited shall stand forfeited to the Authority and the successful bidder shall have no claim to the land or building auctioned."

11-A. Reference inevitably must next be made to form ''CC'' which prescribes the allotment letter for allotments made on free hold basis and is to be used for residential/industrial/commercial plots/ building disposed of by auction only. This form inevitably has a number of columns in blank in its 22 conditions. Note (ii) appended to the form prescribes that "strike out whichever is not applicable". Condition 6 of this form specifies that the possession of the site would be offered to the allottee on the completion of the development works in the area, but in case of buildings or undeveloped lands the possession shall however, be delivered within 90 days from the date of the allotment letter.

IT would be somewhat manifest that the heart of the matter herein is whether Regulation 6(2) totally forbids or bars any variation, however, minuscule in the language of Condition No. 6 in the form ''CC'' when issuing the allotment letter. To focus the issue pointedly the alleged divergance in this case may be noticed by juxta-posing condition No. 6 in form ''CC'' against the corresponding one in the allotment letter in favour of the complainant: - Form ''C'' Condition No. 6 Allotment letter P-3 Condition No. 6 The possession the site will be offered to you on completion of the development works in the area. In the case of building or undeveloped land the possession shall however, be delivered within 90 days from the date of this letter. The possession of the plot/building may be taken immediately after making payment of balance 15 % amount as demanded in Para 4 above Before adverting specifically to the aforequoted condition No. 6 a larger look at form ''CC'' itself would indicate that a particular allotment order for a specific property being a literal and verbatim copy of the said form is hardly conceivable. There are a number of blanks in form ''CC'' which have neeessarily to be filled in when issuing a particular allotment order. Equally the amount of money payable for the property e.g. the sum deposited as bid money and balance amount, the number of instalments and the manner of payment etc. have all to be calculated and incorporated in the form. As the very heading of this form would show, it is to be used for allotments on free hold basis which may pertain to either residential/industrial/commercial plots/building, disposed of by auction only. Necessarily, therefore, the actual allotment letter would have to be varied according to the kind and nature of property to which it pertains. Lastly the form itself incorporates in the notes at the end thereof that the provisions which are not applicable in the form have to be struck out and these have accordingly to be obliterated. Again a reading of the 22 detailed conditions would equally make it transparent that if necessary some of these may have also to be changed marginally to meet a particular situation. Therefore, the hypertechnical argument that form ''CC'' and the actual allotment letter must be identical in terms does not seem to hold water.

Coming now to the specific condition No. 6 in Form ''CC'' even a plain reading thereof would show that it is intended to cover three distinct categories of property. First it deals with the developed sites sold by H.U.D.A. with regard to which the stipulation is that possession of such sites would be offered on completion of development works in the area. Secondly it deals with the case of buildings and the stipulation, therefore, is that possession of such property would be delivered within 90 days from the date of the allotment letter. Thirdly the identical stipulation attaches to undeveloped lands as well which are sold by auction. This very salient factor would make it manifest that a particular allotment letter pertaining to specific property which must be one of the three categories of property mentioned above cannot possibly have a generic condition No. 6 verbatim to the one in form ''CC'' which pertains to all the three categories. Necessarily, therefore, the particular allotment letter and the condition No. 6 therein has to be modulated to the specific kind of property which has been auctioned and with regard to which the allotment letter is issued. Therefore, incorporating the condition No. 6, in form ''CC'' verbatim in every allotment letter would be almost bodering on absurdity. Obviously any reference to the other two kinds of properties in condition No. 6 would be patent surplus age and consequentially of no relevance. There thus appears an inherent compulsion that condition No. 6 in form ''CC'' has to be varied and modulated to the exigencies of the situation and the nature of the property to which the particular allotment order would pertain.

IN view of the above, we are firmly inclined to take the view that the somewhat doctrinaire argument that condition No. 6 in form ''CC'' is so sacro-sanct that not a word or coma thereof can be altered must be rejected. It is somewhat elementary that forms prescribed by the rules or regulations are to be broadly adhered to, yet they have necessarily to be tailored to meet a particular situation. A speciman form is not like a provision in a statute mandated by legislature which cannot be altered or departed from nor is it a magic incantation which must be repeated with literality without the least change. The primal and indeed the solitary argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant, consequently must fail and is rejected. In the light of the above, the answer to the question posed at the very outset is rendered in the negative and it is held that Regulation 6(2) does not inflexibly mandate that the allotment letter issued thereunder should be an exact carbon copy of the form ''CC prescribed by the said Regulation."

THIS Commission in its recent order in ''S.D.O., A.E.E. City Division, Hissar v. M/s. Hotel Palki, Hissar'' I (1992) CPJ 127 after an exhaustive discussion of principle and precedent has held that the State Commission must be bound by its own previous decision on pure questions of law. Apart from this we are otherwise also wholly in agreement with the afore-mentioned answer to the legal question and the conclusion arrived at. Once it is held so it is somewhat patent that condition No. 6 in the allotment order Annexure P-2 in favour of the complainant has been modulated to the particular situation and is in substantial compliance with the prescribed condition in form ''CC''. Obviously because the development works were already complete much earlier, it would have been wholly inappropriate to record in Annexure P-2 that the possession of the site would be offered to the complainant on completion of the development works in the area. Once these were completed the only manner of offering possession was that the same may be taken immediately since the area has been developed according to plan. What is said with regard to condition No. 16 applies mutatismutandis to the addition of condition No. 23 in Annexure P-2. Necessarily the principal amounts of instalment money due and the interest and total thereof had to be calculated and communicated to the complainant. THIS again cannot possibly in any way detract from the validity of the allotment order. Equally it has to be recalled that Regulation 6(2) itself mandates that the payment of balance amount of 15% has to be paid within 30 days of the date of the allotment letter. The same was necessarily demanded in the relevant condition No. 4 of the allotment order. Obviously any reference in Annexure P-2 to any buildings or undeveloped land or delivery of possession within 90 days of the allotment letter would have not the least relevance to the situation. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the particular condition No. 6 in the allotment order Annexure P-3 and the insertion of condition No. 23 is in full and substantial compliance of the requirements of Regulation 6 and also in modulated conformity with form ''CC''. No legitimate grievance with regard thereto can possibly be raised by the complainant 18. In the light of the aforesaid detailed discussion, we are unable to detect any merit in the present complaint which must necessarily be dismissed. There would however, be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.