Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Raje Ram on 23 October, 2008
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(2)
CLT 411 (Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Raje Ram) in
support of her arguments. In that case the complainants were not
the original allottees and were the re-allottees, to whom the re-
allotment was made in the year 1994, 1996 and 1997, respectively.
All of them were aware of the fact that there was delay in delivering
Consumer Complaint No.100 of 2014 8
the allotted plots either in forming the layout itself or delay in
delivering the allotted plot on account of encroachment etc. and in
spite of that fact they took the allotment. It was held that their cases
cannot be compared to the cases of the original allottees, who were
made to wait for a decade or more for delivery of possession and,
thus, put to mental agony and harassment. The re-allottees were
aware that the time for the performance was not stipulated as the
essence of the contract and the original allottes had accepted the
delay. By no stretch of imagination the ratio of this judgment can be
applied to the facts of the present case. The Agreement was
entered into on 10.10.2008 and the possession was to be delivered
to the allottees within 36 months of that date, which comes to
10.10.2011. The booking stood transferred in the names of the
complainants on 12.4.2010, well before that date. Therefore, it does
not lie in the mouth of the learned counsel for the opposite parties to
allege that being the re-allottee the complainants cannot take benefit
of the clause, which deals with the penalty payable in case of delay
in the delivery of possession. It cannot be said that the so called
original allottees had the knowledge that there was delay in the
delivery of possession, as the plot had been re-booked in the names
of the complainants much before the date of the delivery of the
possession itself.