Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12.       It is evident, on record, that complainant No.1 vide provisional allotment letter dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure C-2) was allotted Plot No.270 in the residential project "IREO Hamlet" admeasuring 307.77 sq. yard, Sector 98, SAS Nagar, Mohali, the basic sale price whereof was Rs.25,000/- per sq. yard besides External Development Charges (EDC) @Rs.1,275.10 per sq. yard, and IFMS charges @Rs.350/- per sq. yard. Admittedly, Plot Buyer's Agreement was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties on 25.06.2012 (Annexure C-4) at Chandigarh. The payment against the aforesaid plot  was to be regulated as per payment plan, Annexure I (at Page 53 of the file). Against the total price of  the plot including External Development Charges and IFMS Charges, the complainants made payment in the sum of Rs.81,94,556.91. As admitted by the Opposite Parties, the development work started at the site only on 01.05.2013, almost one year after the execution of Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 25.06.2012. The possession was offered on 06.05.2015 i.e. before filing of the complaint on 14.03.2016. The case of complainants is that possession offered was without complete development and basic amenities and the Opposite Parties did not have all the approvals when possession was offered.

16.       Perusal of contents of the afore-extracted Clause, clearly goes to reveal that it was specifically stated that the Company shall carry out internal development within the project, which included laying of roads, water lines, sewer lines, electrical lines etc., however, external development thereof, will be the responsibility of State Government. Above Clause leaves no doubt that possession of fully developed plot, over which construction can be raised, was a promise made by the Opposite Parties, to the complainants. Not only as above, IREO project is a part of Mega Housing Project. If it is so, it cannot be said that piece of land will be sold to a consumer, without making any development. The said Mega Housing Project is covered under the provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act 1995. Thus, since, it was bounden duty of the Opposite Parties to provide basic facilities and infrastructure to make the plot habitable, as such, it cannot be said that only a piece of land i.e. only a plot was to be delivered to the complainants, without any amenities/facilities. Under similar circumstances, in Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  the National Commission, held as under:-

25.       In Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another's case (supra), it was held that amenities were not complete. In Abha Arora's case (supra), this Commission in Para 47 noted with concern, a very serious deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties, in providing service to the complainants, which is extracted hereunder:-

"As per admitted facts on record, External Development Charges (EDC) @Rs.1275.10 per square yard, are payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. Service tax is also payable by the complainant. As per record, EDC and service tax amount was paid in steps, by the complainant to the opposite parties. As per law and otherwise also, it is expected that the said amount might have been deposited by the opposite parties with the Government/Local Authorities, to provide necessary external infrastructure needed for enjoyment of the plots/units purchased by the consumers. As has been discussed in earlier part of this order, 30 months period was available without penalty, with the opposite parties to press with the Government, on payment of EDC, for providing necessary external infrastructure. Very conveniently, in Clause 21.2 it was provided by the opposite parties that they shall carry out only internal development, within the boundary of the project, which includes laying of roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines etc. However, the external linkages for those services, beyond the periphery of the project, is to be provided by the State Government or the Local Authorities. Even if it is presumed, only for the sake of arguments, as on today, the opposite parties may have laid down water lines, sewer lines, storm water drains, roads, electricity, horticulture etc., within the project, admittedly, those lines are not connected with the main lines, to be provided by the State Government or the Local Authorities. For a proper use of plots/units purchased, it is necessary that those lines are connected with the main lines, so that there is no hindrance in enjoying the property purchased.

Thus, the Opposite Parties cannot wash off their responsibility for non-development of external infrastructure on the ground that the same was the obligation of the State Government. When they (Opposite Parties) have received External Development Charges, they were duty bound to ensure by pursuing with the State Government that external infrastructure was complete by the time possession was offered. It was obligatory on part of the Opposite Parties to handover possession to the complainants complete in all respects but they miserably failed to do so. Clearly development and amenities were not complete when possession was offered to the complainants vide notice of possession dated 06.05.2015.