S.N.WAKHALOO vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

DR. S.N. Wakhaloo, the unsuccessful complainant appealed against the order of the District Forum, Ambala returning his complaint with the advice that he may knock at the door of the Civil Court, if so advised.

THE appellant in his complaint had alleged that he and his deceased wife were allotted a plot No. 81 in Sector 4, Panchkula way back in 1973. However, the possession of the said plot was delivered only in 1982. THEreafter, the wife of the appellant unfortunately died and he applied to the respondent-HUDA for transferring the joint plot to his own name individually, A grievance was also made that extension fees from time to time had been demanded from him and he had paid rupees 5,040/- on that account. THE persistent plea was that the appellant was entitled to the exclusive title to the said plot and also the refund of the payments already made. THE relief in terms was that the HUDA may be directed to transfer the plot in his name and not to levy any extension fees further and refund those already received. In resolutely defending the complaint, the respondent-HUDA took up as many as three preliminary objections to which reference now becomes unnecessary. On merits, the firm plea taken was that the relevant plot was allotted in the joint names of the complainant and his wife Mrs. Kamala Wakhaloo and condition No. 9 of the allotment letter explicitly man-dated that the construction of the building thereon should be made within three years after getting the plans of the proposed structure duly approved by the competent authority. It was highlighted that despite the allotment of the plot nearly 20 years earlier and the delivery of the possession on the 15th of March, 1982, the appellant had chosen to keep the said plot vacant in contravention of the terms of the allotment.

The further stand of the respondent was that the deceased wife of the appellant Smt. Kamla Wakhaloo was a co-allottee and according to the rules, policy and guidelines of the HUDA, the transfer of the plot in a death case could be effected only after obtaining the ''No Objection Affidavit'' from all the legal heirs of the deceased. It was pointed out that late Smt. Kamala Wakhaloo has a son Shri Jawahar Lal Wakhaloo and until and unless a ''No Objection affidavit'' was duly executed by the latter, the plot could not possibly be transferred to the individual name of the appellant. The levy of extension fees for the non-construction of the house on the plot was justified on the admitted terms and conditions. It was the case that not only had these been rightly received but further that the appellant was liable to further payments therefore till he complied with the condition of building thereon. It was consequently prayed that not only the complaint should be dismissed but the appellant be directed to abide by all the terms and conditions and complete all the requisite formalities.

IN support of his complaint the appellant relied upon a number of documents being the copies of a somewhat protracted correspondence which he had with the respondent-HUDA. Primal reliance on behalf of the respondent was placed on the applicable rules and regulations. The District Forum on an appraisal of the material before it came to the conclusion that the matter in dispute is regarding the transfer of the plot solely in the name of the complainant and such determination was beyond the appellant was relegated to his ordinary remedy n the Civil Court. Dr. S.N. Wakhaloo who projected his appeal in person did so with considerable ability despite his somewhat crumbling case. He first sought to make a belated grievance of the fact that even though the allotment was made in 1973 the actual delivery of possession of the same was not completed till 1982. A persistent claim for relief on that ground was therefore, sought in his submissions.

WE are afraid that there is no modicum of merit in the primal argument which was sought to be raised. It may perhaps be observed that though learned in his field of education, Dr. Wakhaloo was slightly off the mark with regard to seeking a redress in the consumer jurisdiction. It is somewhat plain that any grievance pertaining to the allotment of the plot in 1973 full twenty years ago would now be wholly barred by limitation and equally the subsequent delivery of the plot was also done eleven years ago in 1982. It is well-settled that the consumer field is not for stale causes and the Limitation Act is equally attracted to this field as well. Therefore, Dr. Wakhaloo''s pleas with regard to matters full twenty or eleven years ago are issues now fore-closed against him by the passage of time. Repelled on his primal submission, Dr. Wakhaloo had then attempted to assail the levy of the extension fees by the respondent against him. It was contended that because of the unfortunate demise of his wife he was emotionally and financially unable to construct any structure on the plot and he could not be burdened with extension fees. We are afraid that the aforesaid submission can equally not hold water. On behalf of the respondents, firm reliance has been placed on condition No. 9 of the allotment letter which is categoric on the point : - "9. You shall have to complete the building within three years from the date of issue of this allotment letter after getting the plans of the proposed building the rules regulating the erection of buildings. This time limit is extendable only if it is found due to the causes beyond your control otherwise this or building erected on it will be resumed and also the whole or part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof forfeited."

IN the light of the aforesaid explicit condition, it is somewhat manifest that the allottees of the plot are obliged to build thereon and not to keep them vacant for extraneous reasons. It could not be denied before us that despite the allotment of the plot nearly twenty years ago or in any case insce the delivery of possession in 1982, not brick has been laid at the site. This would be obviously contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the contract between the parties. The situation plainly attracts the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines with regard to the resumption of the plots and the levy of extension fees. We are unable to see how the appellant can possibly be absolved from the purview thereof.

LASTLY, the dogmatic plea of Dr. Wakhaloo was that despite the fact that he and his wife were admittedly job joint owners and co-allottees of the plot, he would automatically become the sole individual owner of the same in the event of the death of his wife. Being a layman, without actually citing the case persistent reference was made to Damadilal and Ors. v. Parasharam AIR 1976 SC 2229 (2235). We are afraid that there is no merit either in principle or on precedent in the last aforesaid submission of the appellant aforesaid. The closest perusal of the Damadilal & Ors. v. Paraharam (supra) would show that the ratio of the said decision pertained entirely to the heritable nature or otherwise of the status of a statutory tenant. The said judgment is not even remotely a warrant for the somewhat tall plea that the death of any joint owner automatically divests his heirs and the co-owner becomes the sole owner. Apart from the precedent, the repeated plea of the appellant that he had automatically become the sole owner of the plot to the exclusion of his son who was admittedly alive and an heir of his deceased wife is equally unsustainable on principle. As at present advised it is not the law that a joint owner''s heir do not succeed to him or that the co-owner necessarily excludes all others unless expressly so provided or contracted between the parties. The residuary submission of the appellant must therefore, fail as well.

For all these reasons, we regret our inability to find any merit in the present appeal. The District Forum is patently right in its view that in the context of a dispute to the title of the plot and the claim of the exclusion of the heirs of a joint owner, the proper forum was the Civil Court. The order under appeal is hence affirmed and the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.