Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10418-10419 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) Nos.30067-30068 of 2013)
PRATAP SINGH YADAV …APPELLANT
VERSUS
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
th th
of orders dated 25 September, 2012 and 26
JUDGMENT
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
th
the process affirming order dated 4 October, 2010
1
Page 1
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
JUDGMENT
th
appellant in terms of allotment letter dated 18
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
th
a letter dated 30 October, 2000 from the
respondent-Haryana Urban Development Authority (for
2
Page 2
short, “the HUDA”), the appellant appeared before
th
the Estate Officer, Faridabad on 13 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
st
him by a cheque dated 1 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
JUDGMENT
besides compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the
harassment and mental agony suffered by him. By an
th
order dated 26 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
3
Page 3
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
th
Commission by its order dated 4 October, 2010.
The State Commission while setting aside the order
JUDGMENT
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
4
Page 4
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.
JUDGMENT
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
th
us for hearing on 13 September, 2013, our
attention was drawn by learned counsel for the
th
appellant to a Conveyance Deed dated 9 January,
2008, whereby the disputed plot was transferred to
5
Page 5
him pursuant to the order passed by the District
Forum. Our attention was also drawn to a Sanction
nd
Order dated 22 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
th
due certificate issued by the Estate Officer on 15
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
JUDGMENT
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
6
Page 6
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
th
operative portion of our order dated 13 September,
2013 was in the following words:
“We accordingly direct the Chief
Administrator, HUDA to hold a
preliminary fact finding inquiry into the
above aspects and submit a report to this
court setting out the circumstances in which
the developments referred to above have
taken place while the matter was sub judice
before the State Commission and the
National Commission. Those responsible for
granting permission and executing the
conveyance deed in respect of the plot
in question without a proper and
formal order of allotment in favour of the
petitioner shall also be identified.
Pending further orders from this Court the
demolition/dispossession of the petitioner
from the plot in question shall remain
stayed. The report of the Chief
JUDGMENT
7
Page 7
Administrator shall reach this Court within
three months.”
5. Pursuant to the above direction an enquiry has
th
been conducted by HUDA and a Report dated 16
December, 2013 relating to the same filed in this
Court along with an affidavit sworn in by the
Estate Officer, HUDA. On a perusal of the Report
it appears that HUDA has found Smt. Sushma Gulati
and Shri Bihari Lal, Assistant and Shri Jai
Bhagwan, Deputy Superintendent responsible for
dereliction of their duties. The report suggests
that these officers have failed to bring the full
facts of the case to the notice of the then Estate
Officer. The Report further suggests that Shri J.S.
Ahlawat, Administrator, Faridabad was responsible
JUDGMENT
for approving the allotment of the plot pursuant to
the execution petition filed against HUDA. This
appears to have been done on the advice of Shri
Harkesh, Assistant District Attorney and Shri
Mahinder Singh Kaushik, Deputy District Attorney.
The report also holds several other officials
8
Page 8
responsible for lapses in the matter of granting
approval for the allotment of plot, execution of
Conveyance Deed, approval of the building plans and
issue of full occupation certificate. Suffice it to
say that the entire process leading to the
allotment of the plot, execution of conveyance
deed, approval of building plan, issue of full
occupation certification has been vitiated by
reason of complicity of the officials working in
the HUDA and named in the Report.
6. Two issues arise for consideration in the above
backdrop. The first concerns the action which ought
to be taken against the officials of HUDA found
responsible for the mischief while the second
JUDGMENT
relates to the approach that needs to be adopted
with regard to the allotment and subsequent
construction of the house by the beneficiary of the
mischief. As regards the complicity of officials of
HUDA in the entire process, the preliminary report
submitted to this court by the Chief Administrator,
HUDA leaves no room for taking a lenient view
9
Page 9
either by HUDA or by this Court. HUDA is bound to
take proper disciplinary action against those found
responsible and to suitably punish them in
accordance with law. To that extent there is no
difficulty in issuing a direction, which we do
hereby issue.
7. Coming to the second aspect we had by our order
th
dated 29 April, 2016 directed HUDA to file an
affidavit indicating the prevalent rate of land in
Sector II, Faridabad for the period 2015-16 of
plots of the size of 235 sq. meter. HUDA has
accordingly filed an affidavit by the Estate
Officer stating that the rate for allotment for
land in Sector II, Faridabad for the period 2015-16
JUDGMENT
is Rs.18,000/- per sq. meter. It was contended on
behalf of the petitioners, who happen to be the
legal heirs of the deceased allotee that this Court
has in Pradeep Sharma vs. Chief Administrator,
Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Anr. in Civil Appeal
Nos.52-53 of 2016 in almost identical circumstances
directed the continuance of allotment made in
10
Page 10
favour of allottee subject to his paying the
prevalent HUDA rate for the plot of land upon which
he had constructed a house in Sector 64 of
Faridabad in almost similar circumstances and in
connivance with HUDA officials. A reading of the
said order does support that submission. That too
was a case where the complainant had received the
refund of the amount deposited by him and then
approached the District Forum for restoration of
his allotment. The District Forum had as in the
present case ordered restoration of the allotment
to the complainant after adjustment. While an
appeal was pending before the State Commission, the
complainant had in that case filed an execution
petition and got the allotment restored along with
JUDGMENT
the possession of the plot. The State Commission
had subsequently set aside the order passed by the
District Forum and dismissed the complaint but the
complainant had in the meantime constructed a
building over the plot in question. It was in that
background that we had, as in the present case
11
Page 11
directed an enquiry into the circumstances in which
the allotment of the plot and other steps like
sanction of the building plans and no encumbrance
certificate and other certificates were issued to
the complainant. The HUDA had accordingly
conducted an enquiry as is the position in the
instant case also and found that some of the
officials had been responsible for conniving with
the complainant in that case. This Court had
taking into consideration all the circumstances and
especially the fact that the complainant had
already constructed a house over the plot in
question directed the appellant would retain the
same on his depositing the prevailing cost of the
plot in dispute after adjusting the amount already
JUDGMENT
deposited. We have no reason to deny similar relief
to the appellant in the instant case also. It is
true that the appellant has been a beneficiary of
what is and can be said to be a fraudulent
allotment yet keeping in view the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case demolition of the
12
Page 12
house and restoration of the plot to HUDA may at
this stage work rather harshly for him/them. The
proper course, therefore, is to allow the allotment
to continue subject to the appellant depositing the
prevalent price of the plot at the rate of
Rs.18,000/- per square meter as indicated above.
8. We accordingly allow these appeals but only in
part and to the extent indicated above and set
aside the order passed by the National Commission
and the State Commission with the direction that
subject to the appellant depositing the price of
the plot at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per square
meters within a period of six months from today the
appellant shall be permitted to retain the plot. In
JUDGMENT
case the needful is not done within the time
allowed, this appeal shall stand dismissed and
order passed by National Commission and the State
Commission affirmed. In any such event HUDA shall
be free to dispossess the appellant from the
property and resume the possession of the plot
along with the superstructure, in case the
13
Page 13
superstructure is not removed by the appellants
within the time granted by HUDA for that purpose.
9. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
...............CJI.
(T.S. THAKUR)
.................J.
(U.U. LALIT)
New Delhi
October 28, 2016
JUDGMENT
14
Page 14