Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NOS.  52-53    OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.5567-5568 of 2012)

PARDEEP SHARMA          ..Appellant

Versus

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY & ANR.             ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.  

Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  filed  assailing  the  orders  dated  

19.07.2011  and  29.09.2011  passed  by  the  National  Consumer  

Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  New  Delhi  (for  short  ‘National  

Commission’)  dismissing  the  Revision  Petition  No.671/2011  and  

also the Review Application No.142/2011, thereby confirming the  

order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes  

Redressal  Commission,  Haryana  (for  short  ‘State  Commission’)  

whereby  it  was  observed  that  the  appellant-complainant  having  

accepted the refund amount of  10% and was no longer a consumer  

1

Page 2

and has no locus standi  to seek  possession of the plot allotted to  

him.

3. Brief facts which led to the filing of these appeals are as  

follows:-  The  appellant/complainant  was  allotted  a  plot  bearing  

No.1048  in  Sector  64,  Faridabad  measuring  250  sq.  yds.  vide  

Memo No. 399 dated 01.01.2001 at the rate of Rs.1,865/- per sq.  

yd. The appellant along with the application form had deposited  

10% as  earnest  money  and  15% of  the  sale  consideration  was  

deposited on 22.01.2001.  Balance amount of 75% of the total cost  

was to be deposited by the appellant in six yearly equal instalments  

with  15%  interest  per  annum  to  Haryana  Urban  Development  

Authority (for short ‘HUDA’).  HUDA issued the demand notice to  

the appellant calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.59,782.50 vide  

Memo No.38698 dated 04.10.2002 on account of enhancement  of  

the cost of the plot, which as per the terms of  allotment they have  

right to do so.  The appellant has failed to deposit the said amount  

and hence  the possession of  the plot  was not  delivered to  him.  

Alleging that there was deficiency on the part of   HUDA for not  

delivering the possession, the appellant filed a complaint before the  

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short  

‘District Forum’) praying for issuance of direction to HUDA to hand  

over the possession of the plot by adjusting the amount already  

2

Page 3

deposited.  During the pendency of the said complaint before the  

District  Forum,  the  amount  deposited  by  the  appellant  towards  

price of the plot was refunded to and accepted by the appellant.  

The  fact  that  the  appellant  had  taken  refund  was  however  not  

brought to the notice of the District Forum which passed the award  

on 19.12.2005.  The District Forum vide Order dated 19.12.2005  

allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to re-allot the  

same plot to the appellant on the same price and hand over the  

possession of the same to him.  The District Forum ordered that  

the amount already paid by the appellant to be adjusted against  

price of the plot now to be allotted to the appellant as per the order.  

Additionally, respondents were also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on  

account  of  mental  agony,  harassment  and  damages  and  also  

Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  

4. Aggrieved by the said order, HUDA filed appeal bearing  

No.708/2006 before the State Commission.  When the appeal was  

pending before the State Commission, the appellant filed execution  

petition and in compliance of the order dated 02.09.2009 by the  

District  Forum  in  Execution  Petition  No.504 dated  12.05.2006,  

physical possession was handed over to the appellant. The State  

Commission vide order dated 02.12.2010 allowed the appeal and  

thereby set aside the award passed by the District Forum observing  

3

Page 4

that  the  respondent/complainant  cannot  claim  any  relief  with  

respect to the plot voluntarily surrendered by him and the District  

Forum erred  in  accepting  the  complaint.  The  State  Commission  

further  held  that  the  complainant  having  accepted  the  refund  

amount  of  10%  after  surrendering  the  plot,  the  

respondent/complainant was no longer a consumer.   As against  

the  order  passed  by  the  State  Commission,  appellant  preferred  

revision  before  the  National  Commission  and  the  same  was  

dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.07.2011.  The review  

application No.142/2011  filed  by  the  appellant  also  came to  be  

dismissed by another order dated 29.09.2011, which is also now  

under challenge.      

5. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant  

submitted that the State Commission and the National Commission  

erred  in  not  taking  into  consideration  that  the  appellant  has  

already  deposited  the  total  of  sale  consideration  and  that  he  

obtained DPC completion certificate after construction as per the  

sanctioned building plan. It was submitted that the action of HUDA  

for  cancellation  of  the  allotment  of  the  plot  and  refund  of  the  

amount  deposited  by  the  appellant  was  without  providing  any  

reasonable  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  appellant  which  was  

totally  arbitrary  and  that  the  District  Forum rightly  passed  the  

4

Page 5

award directing re-allotment of the plot at the same rate and the  

State  Commission  and  National  Commission  ought  not  to  have  

interfered with the same.   

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted   that in  

compliance of the order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the District  

Forum in Execution Petition No. 504 dated 12.05.2006, physical  

possession of the plot was handed over to the appellant. Learned  

counsel for the respondents further submitted that having accepted  

refund of the amount, the appellant was no longer a consumer and  

cannot seek for allotment of plot and the State Commission and the  

National  Commission  rightly  reversed  the  award  passed  by  the  

District Forum.

7. We  have  carefully  considered  the  rival  submissions  

advanced by both the parties and perused the impugned orders  

and material on record.

8. As  noticed  above  that  even  while  the  matter  was  

pending before the State Commission in appeal, the Estate Officer  

of the respondent-authority in pursuance of the order passed by  

the District Forum in Execution Petition No.504 and by letter dated  

15.04.2008 regularized the allotment of the plot and handed over  

the possession thereof to the appellant.  Possession was actually  

delivered  to  the  appellant  on  07.10.2009.  Taking  note  of  these  

5

Page 6

facts,  by  order  dated  01.11.2013,  this  Court  has  directed  the  

respondent-authority to hold an inquiry and identify the person(s)  

responsible  for  issuing  orders/certificates  like  regularization,  

delivery of possession etc.  We may usefully refer to the relevant  

part of the order dated 01.11.2013 which reads as under:-

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.  In the  ordinary course, we would have, in the light of the affidavit filed by the  respondent-Authority,  disposed of the matter with a suitable direction  regarding  payment  of  the  extension  of  fee  by  the  petitioner.   What  dissuades us from doing so is the fact that consequent upon the order  passed by the District Consumer Forum and while the matter was still  pending before the State Commission in appeal, the Estate Officer of the  respondent-Authority had by letter dated 15th April, 2008 regularised the  allotment of the plot and offered the possession thereof to the petitioner.  This order, it appears, was passed either in ignorance of the fact that the  HUDA had challenged the order passed by the District Consumer Forum  or in deliberate suppression of the same.  In the ordinary course if HUDA  had assailed the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, there  was no question of the Estate Officer going ahead with regularization of  the allotment or delivering possession of the plot-in-question.  Not only  that we find that the possession was actually delivered to the petitioner  on 7th October, 2009 and a “no encumbrance certificate” issued on 9th  August,  2013  while  the  matter  was  pending  before  the  State  Commission.   Building  plan  for  the  proposed  construction  was  sanctioned  on  21st September,  2010.   All  this  happened  while  the  proceedings  before  the  State  Commission  were  pending  to  which  respondent-HUDA was a party.   The State Commission eventually set  aside  the  order  passed  by  the  District  Consumer  Forum  on  2nd  December,  2010.   Even  so  the  respondent-HUDA  issued  a  DPC  Certificate on 20th December, 2010, no matter the order passed by the  District  Consumer  Forum  directing  regularised/re-allotment  and  possession had already been set aside by the State Commission.

We are told by learned counsel for the petitioner that construction  over the plot-in-question has since been completed.  We however fail to  appreciate how despite orders passed by the State Commission and that  passed  by  the  National  Commission,  the  petitioner  was  granted  a  regularisation  certificate,  given  possession  of  the  plot,  issued  a  “no  encumbrance certificate”, granted a DPC certificate and given sanction  for the construction of the proposed building.  It is obvious that utter  confusion  and  lack  of  communication  prevails  within  HUDA  for  one  section does not appear to be knowing what the other section is doing  which does not speak well about the working of the Authority.  At any  

6

Page 7

rate, before we pass any further direction in the matter we deem it just  and proper to direct that the Chief Administrator, HUDA, shall hold an  inquiry into the circumstances in which the developments, mentioned  above,  have taken place and also identify the persons responsible for  issuing orders and certificates like regularisation, delivery of possession,  “no  encumbrance  certificate”,  DPC  certificate  and  sanction  of  the  building plans for the construction of the proposed building, despite the  orders passed by the State Commission and that passed by the National  Commission.  The inquiry shall be expedited and a report to this Court  submitted as early as possible but not later than four months from the  date of receipt of a copy of this order.”   

9. Inspite  of  the  above  order,  there  was  delay  in  

conducting inquiry and also taking action against the officials of  

the  HUDA  responsible  for  dereliction  of  duties.  By  order  dated  

17.11.2015, this Court has directed the Chief Administrator, HUDA  

to be present in the Court and also to file the response.  Thereafter,  

HUDA has filed its response on 19.11.2015  indicating the  names  

of  the officials  responsible for   lapses in this  case and also the  

status of action taken and we are of the view that the action taken  

against erring officials are to be taken to their logical conclusion.

10. On behalf  of  the appellant,  it  was submitted that the  

appellant is a retired government official and that before obtaining  

no dues certificates from the respondent-authority, the appellant  

has  deposited  a  sum of  Rs.6,79,557/-  and  that  after  obtaining  

actual  physical  possession,  the  appellant  has  spent  his   hard  

earned money and also substantial part of his retiral benefits in  

putting up the construction and that the appellant be permitted to  

7

Page 8

retain  the  plot  and  the  building   constructed  over  the  plot  in  

question.  It was also submitted that by so permitting the appellant  

to  retain  the  plot,  HUDA  may  not  loose  in  any  manner.  To  

substantiate  the  contention  that  the  appellant  has  put  up  the  

construction, photographs were also filed by the appellant which  

shows that only finishing work is to be completed.   

11. Considering  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  

and that  the  appellant  has  put  up substantial  construction,  we  

directed the respondent-authority  to file rate of the plot  in Sector-

64  at  various  point  of  time  so  as  to  consider  the  claim  of  the  

appellant  to  permit  him to  retain  the  plot  in  question  with  the  

construction thereon. Pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2015, the  

respondent-authority has filed its affidavit, relevant part of which is  

extracted herein below:-

“(1) It is submitted that the present circle rate of Sector-64 in  which the disputed plot is situated is fixed @ Rs. 22,000/- per sq.  mtrs. for the year 2014-15.  

(2) That the last allotment in Sector-64, Faridabad was made @  Rs. 6200/- per sq. mtrs. in the year 2010.

(3) That  the  current  rate  and  circle  rate  of  Sector-2  &  65,  Faridabad (which are in the vicinity of Sector-64) is as under:-

    Sector Current HUDA Rate (per sq.mtr.)

Circle Rate (per sq.mtr.)

       2 Rs. 15,500/- Rs. 22,000/-

      65 Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 22,000/-

8

Page 9

(4)   That  the  year-wise  rates  of  allotment  of  Sector-64  are  as  under:-

   Year HUDA Rate (per sq. yard)

2001 Rs.2718/-including enhanced compensation. 2005 Rs. 2718/- including enhanced compensation.

That  the rate  for  the year  2010 was Rs.  6200/-  per  sq.  mtrs. and after the year 2010, the rate was not finalized till the  year 2014-15, hence the deponent is not in position to intimate  the rate of the year 2011.  Moreover it is submitted that the rate of  the year 2014-15 is Rs. 10500/- per sq. mtr.”

Considering the fact that the appellant has deposited the then cost  

of the plot way back in 2009 and other facts and circumstances  

and  in  the  interest  of  justice,  we  direct  HUDA  to  permit  the  

appellant  to  retain  the  plot  subject  to  the  condition  that  the  

appellant  pays  the  cost  of  plot  at  the  prevailing  HUDA rate  i.e.  

Rs.10,500/- per sq. mtr.

12. The  impugned  orders  passed  by  the  National  

Commission  are  set  aside  and  these  appeals  are  allowed.  

Respondent-authority/HUDA shall  permit  the appellant  to  retain  

the plot subject to  the appellant’s  depositing the amount at the  

current HUDA rate of  the year 2014-15 i.e.  Rs.10,500/- per sq.  

mtr.  after  adjusting  the  amount  already  deposited  by  the  

appellant.  The appellant shall deposit the said amount within four  

months from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, HUDA  

shall  execute  the  necessary  document  and  issue  no  objection  

9

Page 10

certificate and clearances as may be required within four weeks  

thereafter.  It is further directed that the respondent-authority shall  

proceed  against  the  delinquent  officials/officers  who  are  

responsible for the lapses in accordance with law.  In so far as  

action  taken  in  the  disciplinary  proceedings,  the  respondent-

authority shall file compliance report before this Court within nine  

months.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no  

order as to costs.

.…………………….CJI. (T.S.THAKUR)

                                                                      ....…………………….J.             (R. BANUMATHI)  

New Delhi; January   7, 2016         

10