PUDA vs Gajjan Singh

THIS is an appeal by the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (in short "PUDA") against the order of the District Forum, Ropar datd 2.3.2005 by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed in the following terms : ''7. For the reasons recorded above, We accept the complaint and direct O.P. to pay Rs. 26,685.61 to the complainant towards interest on earnest money deposited by him. The complainant is also held entitled to costs of proceedings which are quantified at Rs. 2,500 to be paid by the O.P. to him. Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.''

BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeal may be noticed: Respondent -complainant applied in the general category for allotment of 300 sq. yards plot in the Urban Area, Sector 76 -80, Mohali with the appellant -PUDA on 2nd of January 2001 and had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,12,500 as earnest money. His application was registered vide Registration No. 14403. Since the applicants were more than the plots available draw of lots was held on 30th of March, 2001. The complainant was unsuccessful. However, his name was kept in the waiting list as per the conditions published in the brochure inviting applications for allotment. The condition runs as under : ''Where the applications are more than the number of plots, a waiting list in order of seniority will be drawn to the extent of 10% of the number of the plots available under each category. The plots so made available will be offered to the applicants in the waiting list in order of their merit. The waiting list will be valid for two years with effect from the date of draw of lots.''

THE complainant was placed at Serial No. 37 in the seniority of the waiting list for the general category for the applicants who had applied for 300 sq. yards plots. After the draw of lots the result was duly published on 1.4.2001 in which the complainants name was shown in the waiting list at serial No. 37. As per the aforesaid condition for drawing up of the waiting list the same was to be valid for a period of two years. The complainants name remained on the waiting list for a period of two years but unfortunately no plot became available for allotment to the complainant who was on the waiting list. Refund of the earnest money was sent to the complainant on 30.8.2003. The complaint was filed that the refund should have been made with interest. Finding favour with the argument of the complainant the District Forum allowed the complaint as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal by PUDA.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant urged before us that as per the condition of the brochure mentioned above the applicants to the extent of 10% of the available plots were to be kept on the waiting list. In other words, if there were 200 applicants and the plots were 100, first 100 applicants whose names are drawn by lots would be offered the plots and the next 10 applicants whose names are drawn by lots would be kept on the waiting list for a period of two years for the purpose that if any plot becomes available by way of surrender etc. out of 100 applicants who had been successful and offered plots, the same can be offered to the applicants in the waiting list in order of seniority. The complainant never asked for the refund of the earnest money after 1.4.2001 when his name was kept on the waiting list and rather kept on taking chance for allotment of a plot for period of two years, which is the valdity period of the waiting list. He further submitted that so far as the condition for the refund of earnest money is concerned, it has been provided as under : ''Unsuccessful applicants shall be refunded their earnest money after 90 days from date of draw. However, inerest @ 10% per annum shall be allowed for the period beyond 181st day in case refund is made after 180 days.''

From the aforesaid condition, learned Counsel for the appellant PUDA argued that in the present case since there was a waiting list and the complainant took the chance for a period of two years for the allotment of a plot on the basis of his name being on the waiting list the earnest money could be refunded within six months after two years of the draw of lots without any interest. In other words, the complainants application was kept pending for consideration for allotment of plot upto 30th March, 2003. Since the refund was made within six months of 30th of March 2003 i.e., on 30th of August, 2003, then as per the aforesaid condition no interest was to be paid. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the complainant argued that no option was sought from the complainant to keep his name on the waiting list and, therefore, the earnest money became refundable after the draw of lots when his name did not occur in the main list but only in the waiting list.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the view that there is force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant. All applicants were bound by the conditions as published in the brochure for allotment of plots. One of the conditions was that a waiting list in order of seniority will be drawn to the extent of 10% of the plots available under each category. The complainant was governed by this condition and no option was to be asked from him as to whether his name should be kept in the waiting list or not. In fact his name was kept on the waiting list. He never asked for the refund of the earnest money on the ground that he does not want his name to be kept in the waiting list. As observed above, he kept on waiting for a period of two years (the validity of the period of the waiting list) and took a chance that a plot may become available and he may be allotted the same. Having done that it cannot be urged on his behalf that the earnest money became refundable immediately after the draw of lots when his name was kept on the waiting list.

ONCE an applicant enjoys the concession of his name being kept on the waiting list and takes a chance that during the period of the valdity of the waiting list he may be allotted a plot in such cases the money becomes refundable after two years of the applicants name having been put on the waiting list by draw of lots. Taking the clue from the condition regarding the refund of earnest money for first 180 days no interest is payable. Since in the present case the refund was made within 180 days of two years of the waiting list in vogue, no interest was payable to the complainant. We are of the view that the District Forum went wrong on the aforesaid grounds when it allowed the complaint. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this appeal; set aside the impugned order of the District Forum dated 2.3.2005 and dismiss the complaint. However, there will be no order as to costs.

THE money deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be remitted to it by way of crossed bank draft/cheque after 45 days. Appeal allowed.