Post covers Allotees & Re-Allottees definition by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission when it comes to deciding relief in delay in possession claims.
Allotees & Re-Allottees Rights in Delay in Possession
In this case study, we will look into how the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission enshrined the principal laid down by the Honourable Supreme court regarding the differences between allottees and re allottees, in addition to that the principal laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court regarding the interest in delay of delivery of the possession and emphasis on re-allottee is not entitled to have the same rights as the original allottee and can’t have compensation.
Also Read- Subsequent+allottee | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine
Harpreet Kaur vs Greater Mohali Development Authority
Brief facts of the case in the complaint
Award was announced by the opposite parties for the acquisition of sector 88 and 89 where two modes of compensations were prescribed one of which was, Land Pooling Scheme, under which land owners were given option that they could get back the developed land in lieu of compensation and will get residential area measuring 1000 sq. yds. And commercial area measuring 100 sr. yds per acre. This scheme provides that neither the land owner can get compensation nor he is required to pay anything for getting the developed plot. Mohan Singh, who was the vendor of the complainant opted out of this scheme and after the persuasion by the land owners and great Consumer complaint, the opposite party issued Letter of Interest which was given to many other vendors including Sh. Balkha Singh. The letter was issued 2 years later after Land Pooling for allotment of residential area measuring 200 sq. yds. The opposite party in its Letter of Interest, promised the delivery of the possession within the period of 1 – ½ years to 2 years. The complainant purchased the land form Mohan Singh and the opposite party transferred the same in her favour after charging the 1,25,000 (2.5% of 50,00,000). During the some of the land owners filled a civil petition, in the Court of Punjab and Haryana regarding the opposite party not undertaking the development work and opposite party pleaded that the development work will be done by the 30.11.2018. The opposite party in order to save itself from the contempt of the court issued allotment letter and offer to take the possession of property within 90 days, measuring 218.33 sq. yds. without completing development 28.01.2019, in addition to that demanded 4,58,250 for the extra 18.33 sq. yds. As well as 5,45,825 which was 10% of the total price plot.
The complainant filled the complaint under section 17 of the consumer complaint act,1986 regarding Preferential location charges and without completing the development work gave delayed offering of the possession as even after the lapse of 6 years from the date of Letter of Interest, the opposite party have failed to complete the development work. The Opposite party was able to develop other project like Purab Premium within 7 months and is not developing this site as the two adjacent sectors are owned by a company of the Mayor of Mohali as no development in the streetlight, sewages and parks. The Letter of Interest issued to Mohan Singh did not have any statement regarding the extra charges. The complainant filled civil Writ Petition when the opposite party wanted to charge such charges in ECO city in the year 2015 which Opposite party gave assurance that they will not charge Preferential location charges. Despite the complainant visiting the office of the opposite party regarding charging of Preferential location charges and no development work, it had no effect. The act results in deficiency in service and seeks to give direction to the opposite party which follows
- to complete the development work and hand over the possession of the work
- to pay the interest of 12% per annum with effect from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent till the date of delivery of possession after complete development work
- to set aside the demand of Preferential location charges
- compensation of 2,00,000 for mental harassment
- compensation of 33,000 for litigation expenses
Also Read- Anil Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Evidence submitted by the Complainant
- Complainant self-own attested affidavit and document
- Notification of Land Pooling Scheme
- Letter of Interest to Mohan Singh
- Opposite party transferring the property in the complainant’s favour
- Order form High Court where the opposite party gave statement that no Preferential location charges will be charged.
Also Read- Shiv Sagar vs State Of U.P.
Defence of the opposite party
The commission has dismissed the case, Hardip Singh vs Greater Mohali Development Authority which is similar in facts and held that it being premature and this present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a consumer as she purchased the plot for the purpose of speculation rather self-residence. There is not deficiency in service as the plot is given in accordance with the acquired plot, which is in the nature of the compensation and no consideration is charged, there is no dispute in transaction and no service as defined in the Consumer Dispute Act as been provided by the complainant. The benefits is only for the actual land owners and the complainant is a subsequent purchaser from land owned by Mohan Singh and not liable to get benefit. In the allotment letter, the clause 24, a dispute will be referred to an arbitrator. As per settled law, the commission does not have jurisdiction against the raising pricing issue. The opposite party accepts the passing of awards but denied for getting a residential plot of 1000 sq. yds, one has to pay Consideration of one acre land as the opposite party is giving plot in lieu of acquired land. The opposite party also denies the assurance in the Letter of Interest that the delivery of possession will be given within 1/1 or 2 years. The opposite party denies the development of two projects including Purab Premium Apartments and no delayed development in site as they will not gain anything for not developing. The possession is ready to be delivered and the complainant is avoiding it for extra consideration. The ECO City scheme was different and can’t be applied here as it will lead to chaos in policy making.
Also Read- Allottee has the discretion to seek refund in case of delay from Promoter
Evidence submitted by the Opposite party
- Self-attested affidavit of Rohit Gupta, Estate Officer (plot)
Observation by the Commission
Mohan Singh was to be allotted a residential plot measuring 200 sq. yds. which opposite party acquired under the Land Pooling Scheme, the complainant purchased the land from Mohan Singh and allotment letter was issued to the complainant measuring 218.33 sq. yds. Clause 5 follows, the possession shall be given within 90 days and in case the allottee fails, it will be presumed the allotee has taken over the possession. There will be no refund on any ground and the authority will not be responsible for uneven sites. The complainant was to take the delivery of the possession within 90 days, the complainant has filled the case pre maturely as the complaint was filled just after 25 days of issuance of Allotment Letter. The commission has already dismissed a complaint in similar case of Hardip Singh vs Greater Mohali Development Authority.
Also Read- Complaint no. 804 of 2019 – Haryana Real Estate Regulatory judgment on Subsequent Allottee
Regarding the Preferential location charges, the plot is a corner plot and as per the allotment letter 10% of tentative cost is to be charged for the corner plot and hence, the demand is legal.
Regarding the late deliver of the possession, Honourable Supreme Court in Haryana Development Authority vs Raje Ram, held that re allotees are not the same as original allottees and their case can’t be same.
Also in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs D.S Dhanda etc, Honourable Supreme Court held that in case of transfer of flat interest on account of delayed possession will be payable from the date of expiry of three years from the date of engagement or date of transfer, whichever it is later. And in this case, the complainant can’t ask for grant of interest for delayed delivery of possession, as there has not been three years since the issuance of allotment letter.
In the above discussion, it is held that the complaint is pre mature and the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages. And in this case, the complainant can’t ask for grant of interest for delayed delivery of possession, as there has not been three years since the issuance of allotment letter
For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
More on 7888-356908.
