ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. These two appeals arise from an order passed by the State Commission on 13.9.2001.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Asha Rani had registered herself for one Kanal plot with the Directorate of Urban Estate, Punjab, Chandigarh on 12.8.69. It was only on 28.3.1980 that she was allotted a plot measuring 500 yards (1 Kanal) at a price of Rs. 29,000/-. Vide her letter dated 25.5.80, on the complaint finding that the plot is non existent in fact it was located on a ‘Cho’ (monsoon rivulet), a prayer for allotment of an alternative plot was made. In the meantime the demanded amount of Rs. 29,000/- was paid in two instalments by 1983. Despite repeated requests/reminders, alternative plot was allotted after a delay of 13 long years, on 6.8.1993 on the original terms and conditions. A legal notice was issued by the complainant dated 12.1.94 demanding interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount. When nothing happened, a complaint before the State Commission was field on 29.1.2001 seeking following relieves.
“Allotment of a plot of the same size on the same terms and conditions in the same phase/sector in which the plot was originally in lieu of the reallotted inferior plot or in the alternative an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to compensate the loss to the complainant by the allotment of a location – wise inferior alternate plot as explained in Para 7 above, so as to put her at par with other original allottees.
Immediate actual physical possession of a habitable plot without burdening the complainant with interest, non-construction fee etc. for the intervening period from 1980 till actual offer of possession and approval of building plan which already stands submitted to the authorities as stated in para 10 above.
Interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of each deposit made by the complainant from 1969 onwards which remained with and utilised by OPs whereas the complainant remained deprived of its use in view of non-delivery of actual physical possession of a habitable plot for which the money was invested.
An amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakh only) as compensation against escalation in the cost of construction as explained in para 14 above.
An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) as damages against untold mental agony and tremendous physical harassment.
An amount of Rs. 50,000/- Rs. Fifty thousand only) in lieu of expenditure incurred by the complainant in chasing up the case with OPs for a period of about 32 years from 1969 till date.
An amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) against counsel’s fee and litigation expenses.”
3. The State Commission after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, passed over in following terms.
“In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties is writ large for delaying the allotment/possession of habitable plot in 13 years. The complaint succeeds on merit and is allowed to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to give possession of the reallotted plot No. 2379 in Phase (XI) Mohali, on the same terms and conditions within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of escalation charges in the building material for the said delay. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses are also allowed and directed to be paid in the said period of 2 months failing which the amount of compensation will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment.”
4. Aggrieved by this order both in parties have filed appeals before this Commission. While the prayer of the complainant is for grant of all the reliefs in full sought in the complaint, prayer of PUDA is to set aside the order of the State Commission as this order cannot be sustained on both facts and law.
5. Hence in the light of this judgment in the instant case the complainant has no case. On all these grounds appeal filed by PUDA (FA 318/2001) needs to be allowed and complaint be dismissed on barred by limitation.
6. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that in the first instance PUDA took 11 long years to allot a plot, which was in a ‘cho’ and again it took 13 long years to allot an alternative plot in 1993 in an area which was not developed and was inferior to the original sector. PUDA after allotment neither gave the possession of the plot, nor gave any interest on the deposited amount. Our attention was drawn towards the last para of the allotment letter dated 28.3.80 which reads as follows:-
“The allotment is subject to the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964, and rules framed there under as amended from time to time and you shall have to accept and abide by them.”
7. As per learned counsel for the Respondent, Rule 7 of the said rules, provide for transfer of possession after the allottee has paid 25% of the price. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bahadurgarh Plot owners Association v. the State of Haryana (1996-3) Punjab Law Reporter P-323, it was argued by them that the Hon’ble Court clearly held.
“A perusal of the Rules shows that after applications are made for allotment transferee as mentioned in Rule 7, after he has paid 25% of the price. Another provision of the Rules which is required to be noted is that the transferee is required to complete the buildings within three years from the date of allotment order as per Rule 14, though this time limit may be extended by the Estate Officer, if he is satisfied that the failure to complete the building within the period of three years was due to causes beyond the control of the transferee.
It is not disputed that allotment of alternative plot was made on 6.8.93 in original terms and conditions. As per this letter, construction was to be completed within three years. Learned counsel for the complainant has failed to show us any document on record in support of his contention that any effort was made/PUDA contacted to obtain the possession of the alternative plot. Complainant’s first defence rests on legal notice issued by her on 12.1.94. We have gone through the document carefully. There is not a word about requesting for possession or (SIC) being given. It speaks of interest on record the deposited amount of Rs. 29,000/- paid between 1980-1983. This document does not help the complainant. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that contact was established with PUDA for getting the possession. There is not a single document to support the contention of the complainant. In the affidavit filed by the complainant before the State Commission there is an argument.
“It is absolutely wrong on the part of OP-2 to say in para 8 of the written statement that no formal request for possession was made by the complainant. In fact, the complainant made several such verbal and written requests from time to time and the last one was made vide her letter dated 19.11.2000 sent by Registered Post under postal receipt No. 1106”.
8. The only material on record available is letter dated 19.11.2000 requesting for delivery of possession. There is no evidence/proof of any request for delivery of possession between 6.8.93-19.11.2000.
9. We are unable to appreciate as to why the State Commission did not deal with this important point of law raised by PUDA despite recording it in the body of the order as one of the point raised by PUDA. We also see that before State Commission there was not even an application for condoning the delay yet it went on to dispose of the case on facts/merits without dealing with point of law. It was for the complainant to approach PUDA for delivery of possession. One cannot suddenly wake up after over six years to file a complaint for delivery of possession and still state that cause of action was continuous. Complainant perhaps could have merrily slept over the whole issue but for the notice to pay extension free vide PUDa’s notice on 6.8.99. It is amazing that even then the complaint wanted for over one year to notice, PUDA on 19.11.2000 for delivery of possession. What was complaint doing between 6.8.93 and 19.11.2000 is not on record. As held by Supreme Court in M/s. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. Bijoy Kumar Roy – 2002 AIR SCR 991 question of limitation can be raised any time. Failure of the State Commission to deal with point is a serious lapse. We have not dealt with the merits of the case.
10. The Complaint in our view is clearly time barred – hence dismissed.
11. In these circumstances, Appeal filed by PUDA (FA 318/2001) is allowed and the appeal filed by the complainant (FA 375/2001) is dismissed.
12. Parties to bear their own costs.