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
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
Consumer Complaint No.99 of 2014 8
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 5.3.2008 and the possession was to be delivered to
the allottee within 36 months of that date, which comes to 5.3.2011.
The booking stood transferred in the name of the complainant on
12.8.2008 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 complainant 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
allottee had the knowledge that there was delay in the delivery of
possession, as the plot had been re-booked in the name of the
complainant much before the date of the delivery of the possession
itself.