National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon on 1 August, 2001
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA)and its Estate officer are in appeal. They are aggrieved by the order dated 15.2.1999 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. State Commission by its impugned order had allowed the complaint of the Respondent-Complainant to a great extent. Respond had complained deficiency in service in not handing over to her a plot of land in the Urban Estate, Patiala which was allotted to her way back in 1980. It is the admitted case for the parties that actual physical possession was delivered to the Respondent in June, 1998. As to what were the circumstances for the delay in handing over the possession of the plot of land and the consequences flowing there from, we will examine later in this order. Suffice here to say that the Respondent sought the following reliefs in her complaint:
1. Difference in the cost of construction of the plot for 18 years per Annexure C-9 is (Rs. 9 (nine) lacs.
2. Compensation of harassment and mental agony- Rs. 1 (one) lac.
3. Compensation for amount spent on litigation at three levels-Rs.20,000/-
4. Interest at the rate of 18% pa. on the amount deposited as earnest money and instalment till the date of possession.
5. Exemplary costs be awarded to the Complainant"
2. The State Commission by its impugned order held that Respondent was entitled to : (i.) compensation of Rs.9 lakhs on account of delay in delivery of possession, as there was a delay of 18 years; (ii) Rs. 40,000/- on account of 200 visits to the office of the Appellants at the rate of Rs.200.-per visit; (iii) interest at the rate of 18% pa. as the Respondent was deprived of the use of the plot, to be calculated on the basis of instalment paid by her, total price of the plot being Rs. 27,500/-.; (iv) costs of Rs. 2,000/-. In fact, the amount of Rs. 40,000/-at the rate of Rs. 200/- per visit from Patiala to Chandigarh for seeking possession was on the basis of rough estimate as the Respondent had also claimed Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and harassment. Respondent, was, however, denied any separate amount as compensation towards litigation expenses.
3. Appeal by PUDA against the order of the State Commission was decided by this Commission by its order dated 2.8.1999. Commission reduced the compensation from Rs.9 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs and the amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was deleted. Order regarding payment of interest at the rate of 18%pa. from the date of last instalment was upheld. Two months' time was given to carry out the order.
4. Both the appellants and the Respondent felt aggrieved from this order and two appeals were taken to the Supreme Court. By order dated 23.1.2001. the Supreme court allowed both the appeals observing that the order appealed against was a cryptic order, and it set aside the order of this Commission dated 2nd August, 1999 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the evidence on record and draw a conclusion.
5. The Respondent was allotted a plot of land. No.4170 CC, measuring 500 sq. yds. at Urban Estate, phase-II, Patiala for a total consideration of Rs. 27,500-. The allotment letter is dated 25.2.1980. Some of the conditions in the allotment letter which have been stressed before us by the appellant are those in Clauses 4.5,8 and 12.
"Cl.(4) : The above price of the plot is subject to variation with reference to the actual measurement of the site as well as in case of enhancement of compensation by the court or otherwise and you shall have to pay the additional price of the pot, if any, determined by the department within 30 days of the date of demand in case of sale by allotment.
Cl.(5). You shall have to convey your acceptance refusal of unless you refuse to accept the allotment by a registered AD letter within 30 days of the issue of this allotment order have to pay 15% of the sale price amounting to Rs. 635- or such other amount which together with the amount already paid equal to at least 25% of the sale price of the she. In case of father to deposit the said amount the allotment shall be cancelled and the earnest money already paid forfeited.
Cl.(8) Balance 75% of the purchase price shall be payable either lump sum within 60 days of the issue of allotment order without any interest or in six/three equated annual instalments along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The first instalment shall fall due after the expiry of one year from the date of issue of allotment order and shall be payable on the 10th of the moth following the month in which it falls due.
Cl.(12). You shall have to complete the building within three years from the date of issue of allotment order after getting the plans of the proposed building approved by the competent authority."
6. Clause 4 provides that price of the plot is subject to variations with reference to actual measurement as well as enhancement of compensation by the court. clause (5) requires the allottee to convey her acceptance/refusal and the circumstances flowing from that. clause (8) provides as to how the balance of 75% of the amount of purchase price is payable. Under Clause (12) allottee is required to complete the building within three years from the date of issue of allotment order after getting the plans of the proposed building approved by the competent authority. The allotment of the plot was made in pursuance to the application of the Respondent dated 28.3.1971. After the payment of 25% of the price, possession of the plot was to be delivered to the Respondent for her to make the construction thereon. Respondent in her complaint has alleged that she had desired to build her house for her living. In spite of her writing letters to the Appellants and the personal visits, possession of the plot was not handed over to her. Appellants say that they were unable to immediately hand over the possession of the plot in response to the letter dated 8.4.1981 of the Respondent requiring delivery of possession to her and that was on account of discrepancy in the dimensions of the plot allotted to the Respondent. Appellants then say that after rectifying the dimensions of the plot, a letter was written to the Respondent on 16.11.1983 by the Estate Officer requiring her to take possession/demarkation of the plot. The area of the plot, now, after rectification of the dimensions, was 507.50 sq.yds. It is not necessary to give further details or to refer to the controversy between the parties as to who was at fault for not handing over the possession of the plot by the Appellants to the Respondent or the Respondent committing breach of the allotment letter in not constructing the building or not paying the instalments due or other amounts,as this controversy squarely concluded by the two orders ;(i.) order dated 29.12.1997 of the Additional Chief Administrator, HUDA, Patiala passed in Appeal by the Respondent and (ii) that of the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development dated 17.4.1998 passed in further appeal from the order of the Additional Chief administrator. Appellant in both the matters being DR. Dalbir Kaur Dhillo, now, Respondent before us. It will be appropriate to quote the two orders in extenso:
"IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR,PUDA, PATIALA ...
Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon ... Appellant
Versus
Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala ... Respondent
ORDER:
This is an appeal preferred by Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon against the orders of Estate Officer dated 24.1.1997, whereby the allotment of plot No. 4170C, Phase-2, Urban Estate, Patiala, was cancelled under Section 46 of the Punjab Regional and Town planning and Development Act, 1995 for non-deposit of Rs.50,750/- as non-construction charges and Rs. 21,214/- as enhanced price of the plot.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sr. Asst. Mr. Parmod Gupta along with Law officer, PUDA, Patiala, for the Respondent The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant was allotted a plot No. 4170-C, Urban Estate Phase-II at Patiala. On 25.2.80, she deposited the 25% price of the plot within the prescribed time and the remaining 75% of the price was to be deposited in the three equal annual instalments. The Appellant was asked to deposit Rs. 50,750/- as con-construction charges and Rs. 21,214/- as enhanced price of the plot vide Estate Officer letter No.929 dated 14.1.97 but the Appellant did not deposit the requisite amount and the Estate Officer vide his orders dated 24.1.1997 cancelled the allotment of plot.
I have also gone through the records of the file. As per records, the possession of the plot could not handed over to the allottee on 16.12.1981 due to wrong dimensions of the plot, in spite of her requests. Ultimately, the paper possession of the plot was handed over to the Appellant on 22.1.96 by the Estate Officer. However, as per version of the Appellant in the written arguments, the paper possession was given on 26.694 and again on 22.1.96. As per policy decision of Head Office, if due to some unavoidable reasons the possession of the plot is not handed over to the allottee, then the three years prescribe time is to be considered from the date when the possession is handed over to the allottee, if we take into account the version of the Appellant that first possession was handed over to hereon 26.6.94, even then she was to be given three years time from 26.6.94 for constructing the plot i.e. upto 30.6.97.
Hence in the circumstances, I allow the appeal of the Appellant and set aside the order of the Estate Officer date 24.1.97 to the extent that she is not required to deposit the amount of no-construction charges upto amount on 30.6.97 as required by the Deptt. and there remains nothing due towards the Appellant against the said Plot No.4170-C Phase-II. Urban Estate, Patiala.More so,she was not handed over the physical possession of the plot due to wrong dimensions of the plot as such she could not construct the plot and hence she cannot be required to deposit the non-construction charges against the said plot. On the other hand, she is also required to deposit the enhanced price of the plot amounting to Rs.21,214/- as demanded by the Estate Officer, Patiala along with interest @ 18%, I dispose off the appeal.
Announced Addl. Chief Administrator.
Dated 29-12-1997 PUDA. Patiala (Zone)."
"Before the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab,
Department of Housing & Urban Development.
Dr Dalbir Kaur Dhillon,
Raghbir Colony, Model Town,
Patiala ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala ... Respondent
2. Addl. Chief Administrator, PUDA, Patiala
Appeal against the order dated 29.12.1997 Passed by the Addl. Chief Administrator, PUDA, Patiala, confirming partly the orders dated 24.1.1997 passed by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala.
ORDER Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted plot No.4170-C, Phase-II, Urban Estate on 25.2.1980. The Petitioner could not construct building on the plot, which otherwise was required to be constructed within a period of three years from the date of allotment and further failed to deposit non-construction fee to the tune of Rs.50,750/-. On the other hand, she also failed to make payment of the additional price of Rs. 21,214 /- and on these two grounds, the Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala vide his order dated 24.1.1997 resumed the plot.
The Petitioner filed an appeal before the additional Chief administrator has held that since the Department could not deliver the physical possession of the plot was given), as such it could not be blamed for not raising construction on the plot within the stipulated period. He has further mentioned in his order that due to wrong dimensions of the plot, the possession could not be given to the Petitioner Based on the above facts, the Additional Chief Administrator wiped the Petitioner of the liability of making construction within the stipulated period and also from making payment of the extension fee. However, in his orders, the Additional Chief Administrator directed the Petitioner to make payment of Rs.21,214/- on account of additional price of the plot along with interest @ 18%. Against this part of the order of the Additional Chief Administrator, the present revision has been filed before the undersigned.
I have heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the concerned dealing person of the Estate Office, PUDA, Patiala and have also gone through the record of the case. The most vital point of the case is that during the last about 18 years, the department has not been able to deliver the actual demarcation/possession of the site to the Petitioner at the spot. Further, there was also some ambiguity in dimensions of the plot. In these circumstances, how could the Petitioner be expected to raise construction on the said plot within the stipulated period. Accordingly, the Addl. Chief Administrator has rightly quashed the order of the Estate Officer, Patiala qua the demand of extension fee. As regards the second element of additional price which has been ordered to be deposited 18% interest in the order, after hearing the parties, I am of the considered view that a lenient view requires to be taken especially keeping in mind the Department has failed to deliver the actual possession of the plot to the Petitioner for a long span of 18 years. I feel considerable weight in the submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the cost of construction has gone high and high during the past 18 years. The allottee has suffered heavily on this account without any fault of her own.
In the totality of the circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala will deliver the actual possession of the plot, as is existing at the spot to the Petitioner within 15 days from the receipt of this order. After the delivery of possession, the Estate Officer will prepare the accounts of the payments made by the Petitioner towards the original cost price of the plot. The amount found to be in excess (after making adjustment of price only for the area existing at the spot) will be adjusted towards the additional price and the balance amount found, if any, shall be communicated to the petitioner within next two weeks, which will be paid by her within a period one month without any interest thereon. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/xxxxx Principal Secretary to Government Punjab Department of Housing & Urban Dev."
7. Respondent had challenged the order of the Estate Officer dated 24.1.1997 whereby allotment of her plot was cancelled under Section 46 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1985 for non-deposit of an amount of Rs. 50,750/- as non-construction charges and Rs. 21,214/- as the enhanced price of the plot. The Additional Chief Administrator, by the order dated 29.12.1997 set aside the aforesaid order of the Estate Officer and held that Respondent was not required to deposit the amount of non-construction charges upto the period ending 30.6.1997 as there was no amount due from the Respondent towards the plot. It was also observed that the Respondent had not been handed over the physical possession of the plot due to wrong dimensions of the plot and as such she could not make construction. There was, therefore, no question of requiring her to deposit non-construction charges. It was ordered that the Respondent shall deposit the enhanced price of the plot amounting to Rs. 21,214/- with interest at the rate of 18%pa.
8. Principal Secretary, in the order dated 17.2.1998, passed in revision, further directed the Estate Officer to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot within 15 days from the receipt of the order. There is no dispute that the possession of the plot of land has since been handed over to the Respondent and the directions of the Principal Secretary as contained in his order are complied with. It was, thereafter, that the Respondent filed the complaint against the Appellant complaining deficiency in service praying various reliefs which we have noticed above. The Appellants now seek to challenge the order of the State Commission.
9. Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant wanted us to go into various dates to hold that it was the Respondent who was at fault. She wanted us to go through the allotment letter and further orders of the Estate Officer and the correspondence exchanged between the parties and the validity of the demands raised by the Estate Officer and subsequent order in cancelling the allotment. This, in fact, in appeared to us, she was questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the Additional Chief Administrator and the State Government. She also stated in so many words that the order of the Additional Chief Administrator was based on wrong premise and the factual averments which he recorded in his order were not correct. According to her, so was the case in the order of the State Government. We do not think the appellant could set the clock back and question the orders of the Additional Chief Administrator and the State Government. Under the law, Estate Officer, as a subordinate authority, is bound by the orders of the superior authorities passed in appeal and in revision. Mrs. Issar, then, said that we must consider all the grounds of appeals, as that was the direction of the Supreme Court in its order remaining the matter. We do not think she is right. She cannot urge a ground which, in fact, challenges the very orders of the appellate and revision authorities under the Act of which the Estate Officer is also a creation. A subordinate authority should not feel bad if its order is set aside in appeal by the appellate authority or revisional authority. It is quite normal in our hierarchy of the court system when orders of lower authority are reversed in appeal or in revision. If a subordinate authority does not follow the order of an higher authority, it will certainly amount to an act of insubordination. In the present case, we find that the appeal has been filed at the instructions of the Estate Officer only. We required the presence of the Chief Administrator, PUDA, In pursuance thereto, Mr. K.B.S.Sidhu was candid enough to admit that he is bound by the order of the Principal Secretary and the Estate Officer is also bound by the orders of the higher authorities. That certainly salts the controversy and any allegation of default by the Respondent in not paying the instalment for the plot in time or no-construction of the building, etc., after the order of the appellant and revision authorities would be a matter of history and we do not think we are called upon to decide those questions. All the grounds of appeal which seek to question the validity of orders of the Additional Chief Administrator or of the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab whether on factual or legal grounds cannot be sustained and are rejected.
10. Possession of the plot in question was given to the Respondent after 18 years of allotment. The appellate and the revisional authority under the Act have held that the Respondent cannot be found fault with. It was only when directions were issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab that the delivery of the possession was given to the Respondent There is certainly deficiency in service in depriving the Respondent produced a witness, namely, Lakbir Singh, who testified to the value of the construction in 1980 and that in 1998 when possession was delivered to the Respondent. According to him, construction could be made on the plot upto 2,250 sq.ft. area. In the Year 1980 the cost of construction was Rs.200/- per sq. ft. and Rs.13,50,000/-, the difference in the cost of construction being Rs. 9 lakhs. There is no rebuttal, whatsoever, in the evidence so produced by the Respondent. The being the position, the award of R.\s. 9 lakhs being the difference in price for construction could not be said to be in any way excessive. Once having compensated the Respondent towards the cost of construction, we do not think, she is also entitled to claim interest. It is not that the Respondent was making profit out of the plot of land. She was to build a house for her own residence thereon. Award of interest at a particular rate should be such as to compensate the allottee who is deprived of the land and is to go elsewhere in the same or nearby area to buy a plot of land of same measurement. Respondent's own case is that she is to build her house on the plot allotted to her. When court is giving escalated price for the construction, it does not seem appropriate to give interest on the amounts paid towards purchase price of the plot to being the value of the plot at the market rate on the date of the possession. It has also to be kept in mind that there has been manifold increase in the price of the land. That was in 1971 when application for allotment was made or when plot was allotted in 1981 and in 1998 when possession was handed over. We, therefore, delete the award of interest to the Respondent. Award of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for expenses incurred by the respondent in making hundreds of visits to Chandigarh to seek possession of the land and the harassment caused to her is sustained. There is nothing on record to contradict the statement of the Respondent in this respect. With this modification, the order of the State Commission is sustained and the appeal stands disposed of in these terms.Since the Appellant partly succeeds, there shall be no order as to costs.