Important decisions in favor of HUDA of various courts which are to be mentioned as preliminary objections in identical matters pending in various courts by the concerned Estate Officer, Administrators, ADA/DDA and paneled Advocates

Revision Petition No. 2046 of 2009, HUDA Vs Ushma Rani Dureja

On the issue of deciding representation and consequences of court orders to decide representation.

Dyeing Unit Matters

Plot purchased in open auction - purchaser / allottee required to communicate acceptance or refusal within 30 days – No acceptance / refusal sent within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter – offer of allotment stood automatically cancelled – Disposal of land and building, Regulations 1978, Regulation-5 (5)

Limitation Act, 1963, Section-5 – Condonation of delay – Sufficient cause – Court directed to make justifiably liberal approach in the matter – Doctrine of equality – States cannot be given stepmotherly treatment

Civil Appeal No. 857 and 988 (N) of 1984, G. Ramegowda, Major and Basavalingappa Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banglore.

Plot originally allotted was subsequently transferred / got purchased – Subsequent purchaser should not have purchased with closed eye – should have seen the location, situation of the plot – once the plot was repurchased – no groups – First Appeal filed by HUDA was accepted by the Hon'ble State Commission.

C.W.P. No. 7632 of 2007, Randhir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

C.W.P. No. 6858 of 2008, HUDA Vs Suresh Kumar

The award of Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity in service is not sustainable as the workman was appointed de hors the rules of appointment. Consequently, the impugned award dated 26.09.2007 is set-aside.

C.W.P. No. 3224 of 2008, Ram Kali Vs HUDA, Plot No. 327, Sector-11-12, Panipat.

 The Hon'ble Court of the view that no relief deserve to be given to the petitioner who is herself an encroacher on the land belonging to the allottee of Plot No. 1900 and the HUDA land. She cannot seek any direction for the allotment of 49.82 Sq. Mtrs of land. It is well settled that whose over comes for equity must do equity himself. An encroacher cannot be granted equitable relief. Moreover, there is no legal right clothing the petitioner with a corresponding duty cast on the respondents. The Writ Petition is wholly frivolous and the same is dismissed.

First Appeal No. 1950 of 2002, HUDA Vs M/s Aggarwal & Co. and Ors.

 This case is fully covered by the decision rendered by this Commission, as discussed in the precending para of this order. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and disposed off in terms of the order datd 19.08.2005 rendered by this Commission in First Appeal No. 2477 of 2002, titled as Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar Vs Sant Lal Arya etc. Consenquently, the impugned order is quashed and the complaint is dismissed.

Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertaining and decide the Civil Suit in view of Section-50 (2) of HUDA Act 1977

 Plot resumed – Civil Suit filed - Dismissed – Appeal and RSA were also dismissed. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred U/S 50 (2) of HUDA Act 1977.

Civil Suit filed - Dismissed – Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred U/S 50 (2) of HUDA Act 1977 – RSA filed was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

CWP No. 18230 of 2007, M/s Pooja Enterprises Vs State of Haryana, decided on 4.11.08 .

HUDA floated Industrial Plots – Petitioner applied – Interviewed – No plot allotted - CWP filed for allotment of Industrial Plot at Panipat – Challenged “First Come – First Serve” basis – Petitioner having no experience of Dyeing trade – Past experience of Timber Trade – Petitioner having no technical knowledge of required trade – No plot allotted – Hon'ble High Court held - Applicant in a single month considered in a Single block and was to be decided on Merits qua the merits of viability of project – If no, suitable applicant was found – Next block of Applicants were to be considered on merits – Plots were to be allotted who were found successful in respect of project reports, individual merits, financial capabilities – Mere submission of Application not sufficient for allotment of plot. 

Result: Civil Writ Petition dismissed.

(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(e) - Consumer dispute - Housing - Shop site - Auction of site - Jurisdiction. Complaint maintainability - Plea that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the shop site was allotted to the complainant on the basis of public auction - repelled.                                               

(ii)    Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) - Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Act, 1978, Regulation 14- Shop site - Allotment on the basis of auction- Surrender of site - Refund - Provisions of instructions and regulations that in case of surrender of plot 10% of the total consideration amount, interest and other dues payable to be forfeited - Direction of the District Forum requiring the appellant to refund the amount to the complainant along with interest - held not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

Haryana Urban Development Authority Act - Order restoring surrendered plot by Administrator - Setting aside of by Revisional authority - Held, since there is no provision in Act and policies/ guidelines to restore plot originally allotted in year 2000, voluntarily surrendered by allottee, after 5 years again at the rate prevalent during time of original allotment - Petition dismissed.

Land Acquisition Cases

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 5-A - Release or exemption from acquisition - The plea of discrimination in releasing the land of another person cannot constitute basis for declaring the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act as illegal - Others cannot claim to have acquired a right for release on that basis.

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Satisfaction of Govt. as to its requirement and suitability of land for the purpose - It is not for the land owners or the Courts to interfere and substitute their opinion.

A). Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 5-A - Release of land from acquisition - Promissory estoppel - Legitimate expectation - Principles of legitimate expectations are closely interlaced with the principles of promissory estoppel which are based on equitable considerations - No promise of a binding nature could be inferred so as to assume the legal shape of a promissory estoppel mere from correspondence in the absence of any such specific promise and the petitioner changes his position to his detriment on that basis

B). Constitution of India, Articles 14 & 226 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 5-A - Release of land from Acquisition - Cannot be ordered after the possession of the land is taken over and further utilized.

Oustees Cases: A person who’s land has been acquired by HUDA – is not a consumer

Land Acquisition Act, Sections 4 and 6 - Allotment of Plot - To oustees of land acquired - Purpose to ensure that persons are not rendered shelterless - Petitioners failed to suggest that they rendered shelterless when their land was acquired - Petitioners submitted their applications for allotment of plot after prescribed date - Authority is not expected to wait for more than four years for an oustee to apply at his convenience and then proceed to make allotments to others - No infirmity in action of respondents proceeding to make allotment of plots to others. 2002(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 21 : 2003(1) L.J.R. 325 : 2002(1) P.L.J. 17

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer - Housing - Allotment - Land acquired under Land Acquisition Act - Compensation paid for  acquired land - Allotment of residential plot under scheme made as gesture of goodwill- No element of hiring of service  for consideration involved- Complainants not consumer under Consumer Protection Act - Order directing allotment of plot(s) under scheme, legally erroneous, rightly set aside in appeal by the State Commission - No interference required in revision. {(Pg. 148) (Para 5, 6)}

Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.

Interest Dispute Charge of interest - HUDA can charge interest as per contractual obligation

Delay in offering possession, allottee can not demand compensation, keeping in view the invariable increased with price of plot

(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) - Housing - Plot allotment - Flats/house allotment - Delay in delivery of possession – Non-delivery of possession - General principles regulating the granting of relief to a consumer, who complains of delay in delivery or non-delivery and seeks redressal under the Act, culled out.

 (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g) - House allotment - Delay in delivery of possession - Interest - Development Authority delivers the house during the pendency of the complaint at the agreed price - Such delivery accepted by the allottee-complainant - The question of awarding any interest on the price paid by him from the date of deposit to the date of delivery of possession, does not arise - The allottee who had the benefit of appreciation of price of the house, is not entitled to interest on the price paid.

 (iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (0) - Service - House allotment - Where a development authority undertakes to construct building or allots houses or building sites either as  amenity or as benefit, it amounts to rendering of a service and will be covered by the expression 'service' made available to potential users’ referred to in Section 2(1) ( 0) of the Act.

 (iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (0) and 2(1) (d) - Consumer. Service - House allotment - Site with a constructed house - Whether a contract for sale of a house premises, i.e site with a constructed house, as contrasted from a contract of construction amounted to 'providing a service of any description to a potential user including housing construction' - The question left open for decision in an appropriate case.

Only trader or person who fails or omits to comply with order liable for punishment, Appellant Board impleaded as party, Secretary not impleaded, thus Secretary not liable for punishment because he was never impleaded.

National Commission directed all Consumer Fora all over the country that powers vested in the Consumer Fora under Section- 27 of C.P. Act, 1986 are to be exercised cautiously and are not to be misused or used in arbitrary manner.

 (i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 27 - The Consumer Fora is required to exercise equitable jurisdiction so that harassed consumers do not suffer - But, that would not empower the Consumer Fora to exercise jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act in any arbitrary and unjustified manner.(paras 1.6 and 20).

  (ii) Consumer Protection Act. 1986. Sections 27 and 15- Non-bailable warrants -Issuance of - Taking of undertaking from the officers of the Insurance Company that appeal would not be filed against the order passed by the District Forum - Held totally arbitrary, unjustified and de hors judicial norms - Filling of appeal a statutory right u/s 15 of the Act - Cannot be curtailed. - (Para 7).

(iii) Insurance claim - Motor vehicle - Repudiation - Ground that vehicle at the time of theft did not have a fitness certificate - Held that in view of the survey report as well as the documents produced on record the repudiation by the Insurance Company not justified - Insurance Company directed to reimburse the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor. - (Paras 13, 15 and 16).

Middle Man or Estate Agent, who buy and sell plots are not buyers for self use

Territorial Jurisdiction of Consumer Courts – cognizance can not be taken if immovable property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction

District Forum cannot sit over the order of Appellate Authority as Revisional / Appellate Authority and to issue directions

NC / SC – Dismissed of First Appeal on account of non-deposit of statutory amount Under Section- 15 A of the CP Act – Appeal should be heard on merit

Time barred Consumer Complaint filed after two years prescribed period as per Section 24 A of CP Act, Dismissed

Filing of complaint after 27 years of statutory period no consideration of delay period starts from filing of complaint

Industrial Plot allotted on 22.11.1978, possession delivered on 10.08.1989, complaint filed on 9.10.2001, hopelessly time barred.

District Consumer Forum should not have ordered the personal appearance of Chief Administrator, HUDA

HUDA can charge 10% extra sale consideration for preferential plot

HUDA Vs Lakhwinder Singh, First Appeal filed by HUDA accepted by the Hon'ble State Commission (District Consumer Forum order set-aside)