Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The brief facts of the case are that both the complainants, Anil Dewan and Arun Goel were allotted plots by HUDA in Urban Estate Sector 23, Sonepat plot no. 2316 and 1593 on 13.08.1991 and 07.08.1991 respectively. The complainants deposited 10% of the value of the plot along with the application and another 15% of the value on allotment, making a total of 25% as tentative cost of the plots, in question. This was strictly in accordance with the scheme formulated by HUDA for allotment of these plots. As per the Scheme, the balance 75% of the value of the plots was to be paid either in lump-sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six half-yearly annual instalments. The first instalment was to fall due after the expiry of one year from the date of issue of the allotment letter. Each instalment was recoverable together with interest on the balance price at the rate of 10% of the remaining amount.

However, the interest was to accrue from the date of offer of possession of plots. It is also stipulated that interest @18% will be charged on the delayed payment. The possession was to be offered on completion of development works in the area.

It is the case of the HUDA that the complainants did not deposit even a single instalment after the initial deposit of 25% and hence notices were sent to them under section 17 of the HUDA Act many times, but the respondents neither deposited instalments, nor appeared in person despite service of notices. Consequently, the allotted plots were resumed by Estate Officer, Sonepat, HUDA by his order dated 16.08.95 in the case of Anil Dewan & order dated 07.08.95 in the case of Arun Goel. According to HUDA, the complainants did not file any appeal against the said orders of resumption before the competent appellate authority of the HUDA. According to HUDA, the complainants lost the status of consumer by not filing the appeal before the higher authorities.

10. The orders for resumption of plots were passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat on 16.08.95 and 07.08.95. The primary issue involved in these cases revolves around the fact, whether the resumption order is legally correct or not. It has been claimed by HUDA that notices were sent under section 17(1), 17(2), 17 (3) & 17(4) of the HUDA Act through registered post to the complainant, before passing the resumption order. On this issue learned State Commission has observed as follows:-