Shalimar Estate (P) LTD vs Saroj Bala Verma

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member

The complainant / respondent booked a residential plot with the petitioners in a project, which the petitioners were to develop in Village Naggal, Alipur, District Panchukla of Haryana. The petitioners issued an allotment letter dated 28.10.2002 after receiving Earnest Money from the complainant. The price of the plot was agreed at Rs.2,70,000/-. A sale agreement was then executed between the parties on 28.11.2002. The said consideration was payable in installments. The complainant paid all the six installments but the possession was not offered to her and in fact even the development at the site was not completed. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking possession of the allotted plot with all the facilities and compensation quantified at Rs.5,00,000/-.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioners, which admitted the allotment made to the complainant as well as the agreement executed with her. It was stated in the written version filed by the petitioners that the Town & Country Planning Department had vide order dated 08.8.2002 directed them to demolish the work, which they had by that time carried out. The appeal preferred by them came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, they approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana by way of a Writ Petition wherein demolition was stayed on 13.2.2003 and later the writ petition was allowed on 05.10.2016. A Special Leave Petition was filed by the Haryana Government against the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 05.10.2016, which is still pending though, the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court has not been stayed.

Vide its order dated 27.8.2018, the District Forum directed as under: "a) To get the Sale Deed executed / registered in favour of the complainant(s) in respect of the plot in question, within sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, on payment of the remaining sale consideration, if any, due to it by the complainant and the expenses of Sale Deed shall also be borne by complainant. b) To deliver the complainant(s) the possession of the plot in question, after providing all basic amenities, within the committed period of three years form the date of this order. c) To pay Rs.20,000/- to each of the complainant(s) as compensation for mental agony and harassment d) To pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainant(s) as costs of litigation."

Being aggrieved form the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 24.7.2019, the State Commission directed as under:

"i) Respondents/opposite parties shall develop the project as per agreed terms and deliver possession of the plot purchased by the prospective buyers within three years from today;

ii) Respondents / Opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant(s) for indulging into unfair trade practice;

iii) Respondents / Ops shall pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant(s) and also for deficiency in providing service

iv) Respondents / Ops shall pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainants towards cost of litigation.

Let the above amounts be paid within two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the amounts awarded will get interest @ 8% p.a. simple till the time payment is made.

It is further clarified that if possession is not delivered within three years, at the end of said period, the entire amount deposited by the complainant(s) towards sale consideration shall start getting interest @ 8% till the delivery of possession."

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that in view of the order dated 08.8.2002 passed by Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Haryana, which was upheld by the Tribunal vide its order dated 28.01.2003 and pendency of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State of Haryana before the Hon'ble Supreme Court they were not in a position to complete the development of the plots. I however, find no merit in the contention. The order passed by the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Haryana was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide its interim order dated 13.2.2003. The petitioners thereafter could have proceeded with the development work at the site. That however, was not done. The writ petition was eventually allowed by the Hon'ble High Court on 05.10.2016. Though a special leave petition was filed by Government of Haryana, Hon'ble Supreme Court did not deem it necessary to stay the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, there was no legal bar on the petitioners continuing with the development work during the pendency of the special leave petition.

As per the sale agreement executed between the parties, the registration was to be done on or before 19.1.2008. The registration would be possible only after completion of the development work since registration of the sale deed in respect of an undeveloped land of no use to the plot buyer. Admittedly, despite the order dated 08.8.2002 by Town & Country Planning Department, the petitioner continued to collect payment from the complainants. If they were unable to proceed with the development work, they ought not to have collected any payment from the plot buyers after the aforesaid order came to be passed. If they felt that the said order having been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court by way of an interim order, they were entitled to collect further payment from the allottees they should simultaneously have continued the development work. However, despite having collected further payment from the allottees they altogether stopped the development work, which constituted unfair trade practice.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they had given a public notice giving an option to the allottees to take refund of the amount paid by them. The said public notice, in my opinion, would not absolve the petitioners of its legal liability since they were under contractual and legal obligations to develop the plot, give possession of the developed plot to the complainant and execute the sale deed in her favour. A person who books a residential plot for his self-use cannot be compelled to take refund in a case where the developer is in a position to carry out the development but neglects to do so, despite collecting payment from the allottees.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.