SURESH CHANDRA JAIN vs Deepa House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd

COMPLAINANT /Petitioner was a Member of the Respondent House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. and was allotted site No.1 on Temple Road measuring 3950 sq. fts. vide allotment letter dated 29.10.90. On 5.03.91, Respondent executed and registered a Lease-Cum-Sale Agreement in favour of the Petitioner. Possession was also handed over on the same day. Petitioner got the khata changed in his name, paid tax and has been in possession of it. On 11.02.98, Respondent served a letter on the Petitioner withdrawing site No.1 allotted to him on the ground that it was required for public purpose without consulting him and without his knowledge. Respondent offered an alternative site in 2004 which was accepted by the Petitioner by letter dated 29.03.04 with the following conditions:- "I reiterate that I must get a corner site in exchange of my existing corner site, it to be fair and adequately compensatory in return for my gesture. "

Respondent did not allot the corner site. Site allotted to the Petitioner stood allotted to him. Petitioner applied for sanction of the plans for construction of the building along with relevant papers. Respondent did not process it. Aggrieved by this, Petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent to clear the proposed building house plan submitted by the Petitioner in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of order failing which the Respondent was to pay damages of Rs.1,000/- per month for every month of default till the clearance of the building plan. Rs.30,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

RESPONDENT , being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission. During the pendency of the appeal, plans were sanctioned on 04.04.07. On the statement made by the counsel for the Respondent that the plans have been sanctioned, State Commission set aside the direction issued by the District Forum to pay the damages. Order of the District Forum was modified and the appeal was disposed of in the following terms:- "In view of the compliance of the direction issued by the District Forum referred to above, the order passed by the District Forum in so far as the compensation is concerned is set aside. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- before this Commission. If the Appellant/OP files a Memo for payment the office is directed to refund the same to the appellant. "

Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition. District Forum had granted three reliefs to the petitioner i.e. (i) a direction to the Respondent to sanction the plans in accordance with law within 30 days; (ii) on failure to sanction the plans within 30 days, Respondent was to pay damages of Rs.1,000/- per month for every month of default until the plans were sanctioned and (iii) Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that since the plans were sanctioned, the Petitioner was not entitled to damages of Rs.1,000/- per month for every month of default but the Petitioner would be entitled to compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum for undue harassment caused to him for several years. As against this, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation as the Respondent sanctioned the plans within nine months of its submission. Counsel for the parties havebeen heard. In the present case, site was allotted to the Petitioner on 29.10.90. Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was executed and registered on 5.03.91. Possession was also given. After giving the possession, Respondent sought to withdraw the allotted site on the ground that it was required for public purposes without any notice to the Respondent. Initially, Petitioner did not agree but later on agreed to the alternative allotment provided he was given a corner site. Since the corner site was not given, the original allotted site remained with the Petitioner. Petitioner thereafter applied for sanction of building plans on 10.07.06. Instead of sanctioning the plans, Respondent again wrote a letter on 11.10.06 to the JPetitioner asking him to take the alternative site. Petitioner has been unduly harassed by the Respondent for a period of 17 years, i.e., 1990 to 2007 for which he is required to be compensated. District Forum had rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000/-. State Commission rightly set aside the direction given by the District Forum regarding damages of Rs.1,000/- p.m. as the plans had been sanctioned but erred in setting aside the direction regarding compensation for undue harassment. For the reasons stated above, Revision Petition is partly allowed and the Respondent is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of order by the District Forum till realization.