Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) – Construction of a building on a plot allotted fraudulently – Held, demolition of the house and restoration of the plot to HUDA would work rather harshly for the owner. The proper course, therefore, is to allow the allotment to continue subject to depositing the prevalent price of the plot at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per square meter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(T.S. THAKUR, CJI.) (U.U. LALIT, J.)
October 28, 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10418-10419 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) Nos.30067-30068 of 2013)
PRATAP SINGH YADAV …APPELLANT
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals call in question the correctness of orders dated 25th September, 2012 and 26th November, 2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, “the National Commission”) whereby the Commission has dismissed Revision Petition No.186 of 2011 and Review Application No.191 of 2012 in the process affirming order dated 4th October, 2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short, “the State Commission”). The State Commission had in turn while setting aside the order passed by the District Forum declared that since the appellant had voluntarily surrendered the disputed plot of land and accepted the refund amount, he had ceased to be a consumer. He was not, therefore, entitled to file any complaint and that the claim was time barred, hence not maintainable.
3. The facts giving rise to the proceedings may be summarized as under: Residential Plot No.2342 situate in Sector II, HUDA, Faridabad was allotted in favour of the appellant in terms of allotment letter dated 18th November, 1998. The appellant had pursuant to the said allotment deposited 25% of the tentative price of the plot in installments within the time stipulated by the allotment letter. On receipt of a letter dated 30th October, 2000 from the respondent-Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, “the HUDA”), the appellant appeared before the Estate Officer, Faridabad on 13th November, 2000 and filed an application for surrender of the plot and the allotment n his favour. That application was allowed by the Estate Officer and after deducting 10% of the earnest money, the balance amount deposited by the appellant was refunded to him by a cheque dated 1st December, 2000, which was received and encashed by the appellant without protest. A consumer complaint, all the same, was filed by the appellant before District Consumer Forum, Faridabad, in which the appellant prayed for a direction against the respondent for restoration of the plot in question or for allotment of an alternative plot of similar size at the same price besides compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the harassment and mental agony suffered by him. By an order dated 26th October, 2005, the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the appellant and directed the respondent-HUDA not only to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposit made by the appellant from the date of the deposit till the amount was refunded but also to deliver the possession of the plot to the appellant. The District Forum further ordered payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to him. Litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- were also awarded in favour of the appellant by the District Forum. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent HUDA preferred an appeal before the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission which appeal was allowed by the State Commission by its order dated 4th October, 2010. The State Commission while setting aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissing the compliant held that the appellant was not a consumer within the meaning of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(for short, “the Act”) since he had voluntarily surrendered the plot in question. It was further held that the complaint filed by the appellant was beyond the period of limitation prescribed, hence, liable to be dismissed on that ground also. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant filed Revision Petition No.186 of 2011 before the National Commission. The National Commission has, as noticed earlier, dismissed the said revision and affirmed the order passed by the State Commission. Review Application No.191 of 2012 filed by the appellant also having failed, the present special leave petition seeks to assail orders passed by the State Commission and the National Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the orders under challenge. When the matter earlier came up before us for hearing on 13th September, 2013, our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the appellant to a Conveyance Deed dated 9th January, 2008, whereby the disputed plot was transferred to him pursuant to the order passed by the District Forum. Our attention was also drawn to a Sanction Order dated 22nd July, 2008 passed by the Estate Officer of the HUDA whereby building plans submitted by the appellant for construction over the disputed plot were sanctioned. Occupation certificate was also placed on record besides a no due certificate issued by the Estate Officer on 15th March, 2009. It was, on the basis of the above mentioned subsequent developments, argued on behalf of the appellant that since the appellant had already constructed a house over the plot in question which is evident from the photographs of the buildings filed by him, the appeal could be allowed and disposed off. We had, taking note of the above developments, issued a direction to the Chief Administrator, HUDA to hold a preliminary fact finding inquiry as to how a Conveyance Deed in relation to the plot in question could have been executed in favour of the appellant even when the order passed by the District Consumer Forum was not only challenged in appeal before the State Commission but had been set aside by the Commission. The sanction of the building plans culminating in the construction of a building over the plot in question without any formal order of allotment was also found surprising by this Court especially when HUDA was, on the one hand, challenging the entitlement of the appellant to secure the allotment of the plot and sanctioning the building plans and transferring the title in the plot to the appellant, on the other. The operative portion of our order dated 13th September, 2013 was in the following words: