Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veena Chugh vs Haryana Urban Development Authority on 20 September, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 8700 of 2002
DATE OF DECISION : 20.09.2013
Veena Chugh
.... PETITIONER
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Dinesh K. Singal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate,
for the respondents.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) Vide allotment letter dated 29.7.1998 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was allotted plot No. 2199, Sector 18, Panipat. In terms of that letter, she deposited 15% amount within 30 days, to make the amount equal to 25% of the total consideration. The remaining 75% amount was to be paid in instalments. Upto 24.7.2001, she paid a sum of ` 4,14,600/-.
As per clause 7 of the allotment letter, possession of the plot was to be offered to the petitioner on completion of development work in the area within 90 days from the date of the allotment letter. Admittedly, in the present case, possession of the plot was never delivered to the petitioner in terms of the said clause. After waiting for more than 3 ½ years, when Dass Narotam 2013.09.24 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8700 of 2002 -2- possession of the plot was not delivered to the petitioner, on 1.2.2002, she wrote a letter (Annexure P-2) to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat (respondent No.2 herein) requesting that since possession of the plot has not been handed over to her, therefore, the amount deposited by her along with interest thereon be refunded to her. In response to the said letter, vide letter dated 7.2.2002 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was asked to send the original allotment letter and receipts of all the deposits made by her. The petitioner complied with the said letter vide her letter dated 11.2.2002 (Annexure P-4). In spite of that, when the amount was not refunded, the petitioner wrote letters dated 20.2.2002 (Annexure P-5) to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (respondent No.1 herein) for issuing direction to respondent No.2 to refund the principal amount deposited by her along with interest. In spite of that, when nothing was done by the respondents, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to refund the principal amount, deposited by her towards allotment of the plot in question, along with interest.
During the pendency of this petition, the respondents, by treating the request of the petitioner as surrender of the plot, refunded a sum of ` 3,46,520/- after deducting 10% of the total consideration with interest to the tune of ` 68,080/- from the total amount of ` 4,14,600/- deposited by the petitioner.
In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been admitted that possession of the plot was not offered to the petitioner. Dass Narotam 2013.09.24 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8700 of 2002 -3- However, it has been stated that before possession could have been delivered to the petitioner, she has surrendered the plot vide her letter 1.2.2002. Therefore, the HUDA authorities are justified in deducting 10% of the total consideration with interest under the surrender policy dated 7.5.1999. It has been further stated that as per the letters dated 31.3.2000 and 21.3.2001 (Annexures R-2 and R-3), the development work in the area was complete. But the fact remains that possession of the plot was never offered to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per clause 7 of the allotment letter, the respondents were bound to deliver possession of the plot, after making development in the area, to the petitioner within 90 days from the date of the allotment letter. But possession of the plot was not delivered, even after the expiry of 3 ½ years, to the petitioner and in those circumstances, the petitioner was fully justified to ask the respondents to refund the amount deposited by her towards the said plot, along with interest. Learned counsel submits that in the similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in S.K. Khanna v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another (CWP No. 765 of 1997 decided on 19.9.1997), directed the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the allottee with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in case the authorities could not deliver possession to the allottees. Learned counsel argued that in that case also, the respondents had taken the plea that request of the allottee for refund of the principal amount shall be deemed to be surrender of the Dass Narotam 2013.09.24 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8700 of 2002 -4- plot and as per the surrender policy, the respondents are entitled to deduct 10% of the total consideration with interest. But the said contention of the respondents was turned down and the order of refund with interest was passed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, though could not controvert the factual position that possession of the plot was not offered to the petitioner, argued that the development work and the electrification work in the area was complete, as evidenced by letters dated 31.3.2000 and 21.3.2001, respectively. But before the possession could be offered to the petitioner, she sent the letter 1.2.2002 for refund of the principal amount along with interest. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner for refund has rightly been considered as request for surrender of the plot and as per the HUDA policy, 10% amount of the total consideration along with interest was rightly deducted. Accordingly, the respondents refunded ` 3,46,520/- to the petitioner after deducting ` 68,080/- towards 10% of the total consideration with interest from the total amount of ` 4,14,600/- deposited by her. After that, nothing remains due which is to be refunded to the petitioner.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
Undisputedly, in the present case, allotment of plot No. 2199, Sector 18, Panipat was made to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 29.7.1998, and as per clause 7 of the said letter, possession of the plot was Dass Narotam 2013.09.24 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8700 of 2002 -5- to be delivered, after completing the development work in the area, to the petitioner within 90 days from the date of the letter. It is not disputed that the petitioner paid all the due instalments well within time, and when even after the expiry of 3 ½ years, possession of the plot was not delivered to her, she made a request to the respondents on 1.2.2002 for refund of the principal amount deposited by her along with interest. In her request, she categorically stated that for the last 3 ½ years, possession of the plot has not been delivered to her, therefore, she requested for refund of the said amount. When the said letter was replied by respondent No.2 on 7.2.2002, no such plea was taken that the development work in the area was complete and the petitioner could take possession of the plot in question, rather the petitioner was asked to supply the original allotment letter and the receipts of all the deposits made by her, so that necessary action for refund of the amount can be taken. This fact clearly indicates that a false plea has been taken in the written statement that the development work in the area was complete and plots were ready for delivery of possession. But the fact remains that possession of the plot was never offered to the petitioner.
In the similar circumstances, in S.K. Khanna's case (supra), when possession of the plot was not delivered to the allottee and the application made by the allottee for refund of the amount was treated as application for surrender of the plot, and 10% amount of the total sale consideration was deducted, this Court held that the respondents are not entitled to deduct any amount from the principal amount paid by the Dass Narotam 2013.09.24 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8700 of 2002 -6- allottee, and are under a legal obligation to refund the entire amount with interest. In that case, the following observations were made by this Court :
"The Regulations of 1978 provide for imposition of penalty and charging of interest from the plot holders who fail to deposit the instalment in time or raise construction in terms of the allotment letter and conveyance deed. Thus, there is ample justification to accept the plea of the petitioners that they are entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them. During last 6 years, the H.U.D.A must have earned interest on the amount deposited by the petitioners and thousands of allottees. It cannot compel the petitioners to wait indefinitely for completion of the development work. It is, therefore, reasonable to direct the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioners.
We also find merit in the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners that the respondents should be directed to compensate the petitioners by award of interest. Ms. Sangeeta Dhanda placed reliance on order dated 9.10.1996 passed in C.W.P No. 9234 of 1996 R.K. Goel v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another and submitted that identical relief should be given to the petitioner. Shri Chahar submitted that the petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed against the order passed in R.K. Goel's case is pending before the Supreme Court and, therefore, the interest may not be awarded to the petitioners. In our opinion, the petitioners are entitled to be compensated by payment of interest because they have been deprived of their property for last 5 to 6 years.\ In the result, we allow the writ petitions and direct the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners within 2 months of the submission of certified copy of this order. The amount refunded to the petitioners during the Dass Narotam 2013.09.24 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8700 of 2002 -7- pendency of the writ petitions shall be taken into consideration while calculating the total amount to be refunded to the petitioners. The petitioners shall also get interest at the rate of 18% per annum in the light of the order passed in R.K. Goel's case (supra). However, we make it clear that if the order passed in that case is reversed or modified by the Supreme Court, then the petitioners shall get interest in accordance with the order of the Apex Court."
Learned counsel for the respondents could neither controvert the aforesaid legal position, nor could cite any contrary judgment. In our opinion, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court.
Consequently, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the principal amount deposited by the petitioner, after deducting the amount already refunded to her, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
September 20, 2013 ( MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN )
ndj JUDGE
Dass Narotam
2013.09.24 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document