Punjab-Haryana High Court
V.P. Prasher vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 15 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)135PLR767
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: H.S. Bedi, Satish Kumar Mittal
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. On 18.2.1998, the petitioner applied for a plot measuring 10m arlas in Sector 2, Faridabad and deposited 10% amount as earnest money in terms of the advertisement and brochure issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the HUDA'). The petitioner was allotted plot bearing No. 2382 in Sector 2, Faridabad vide allotment letter dated 18.11.1998 (Annexure P-3). The tentative price of the said plot was fixed at Rs. 5.50 lacs. On receipt of the said allotment letter, the petitioner paid Rs. 82,500/- being 15% amount of the tentative price on 17.12.1998. Thus petitioner paid 25% amount. As per the aforesaid allotment letter, the remaining 75% amount was to be paid by the petitioner in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of the allotment letter or in six annual instalments. According to 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. The petitioner paid first instalment of Rs. 68,750/- on 2.12.1999 and the second instalment of the same amount on 18.12.2000. The respondents were required to develop the area immediately within a reasonable time and to hand over possession of the plot to the petitioner after development. The respondents did not initiate any development work in the area. Since the petitioner purchased the plot for residential purpose and wanted to construct his house immediately, he wrote to the respondents to know the exact statuts of the development work being carried out in Sector 2, Faridabad, but the petitioner did not receive any communication from the respondents.
2. When possession of the plot allotted to the petitioner was not offered to him even after the passage of more than three years, he issued a legal notice dated 21.8.2001 (An-nexure P4) for surrender of the plot in question and for refund of the entire amount deposited by him qua the said plot alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. In response to the said notice, the respondents demanded an amount of Rs. 92,895/- on account of enhanced compensation. The petitioner did not make the said payment as the respondents were not carrying any development work in the area and due to which possession of the plot was not delivered to him and filed the instant writ petition for surrender of the plot in question and for refund of the entire amount deposited by him with interest @ 18% per annum.
3. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondents filed written statement in which they have not disputed that development work in the area has not been completed, due to which possession of the plot could not be delivered to the petitioner. However, it has been stated that the petitioner has failed to deposit the third instalment as well as the enhanced amount of compensation demanded by the respondents, therefore, he is not entitled for refund of the amount deposited by him. In the written statement, it has also been mentioned that 60 to 70% development work of the area is complete and the remaining work will be completed by 31.3.2003. The said written statement was filed by the respondents on 20.8.2002.
4. In the replication, the petitioner has controverted the facts as stated by the respondents in the written statement to the effect that some development work has taken place in the area.
5. Today, at the time of hearing, a specific question was asked to learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the development work in the area has been completed and possession of the plot has been delivered to the petitioner? To which learned counsel for the respondents replied that the development works still remain to be completed, therefore, possession of the plot could not be delivered to the petitioner til! today. In view of this fact, we do not find any justification in the stand taken by the respondents. If the respondents are not in a position to make developments in the area and to deliver possession of the allotted plot to the petitioner even after five years of the issuance of allotment letter, they are not justified in refusing to refund the amount, if sought, to the plot holders. If within a reasonable time, the respondents have not made the required development in the area, the allottees of the plots cannot be compelled to wait for an unreasonable period for possession of the plot. The petitioner purchased the plot in the year 1998 and he wanted to construct his residential house on the said plot. For the last five years, he is waiting for delivery of possession of the plot and he has deposited the considerable amount towards the allotment price. But inspite of that, he has not been delivered possession of the plot. Even today, the respondents are not in a position to deliver possession of the plot to the petitioner.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the entire amount, which has been deposited by him towards the aforesaid plot, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. In the similar situation, when the respondents did not complete the development work within a reasonable time and could not deliver possession of the allotted plot to the plot holders, this Court has allowed the prayer for refund of the amount deposited by the plot holders with interest @12% per annum in Civil Writ Petition No. 11598 of 1999 (B.L. Gupta v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.) No. 14550 of 2000 (Lt. Col. Yash Pal v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. decided on 23.5.2001.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the entire amount to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund within a period of three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
H.S. Bedi, J.