NCDRC Holds Ludhiana Improvement Trust Liable For Not Handing Over The Possession Of The Plot

Contentions of the Complainant

The complainant purchased a plot from the Ludhiana Improvement Trust/developer, and although she couldn't construct a house due to relocating to Delhi for family reasons, she diligently paid non-construction dues. Allegedly, the developer tried to unlawfully take over the plot by creating fake identification documents for another person named "Harbans Kaur." The complainant sought protection from the High Court, leading to an investigation uncovering criminal activities by the involved individuals. Despite applying for plot registration, the developer refused. The complainant values the plot at approximately Rs. 2,50,00,000/- and has approached this Commission seeking plot registration, compensation of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for mental distress, harassment, and suffering caused, along with costs and litigation expenses.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The developer contended that the complaint filed by the complainant should be dismissed due to pecuniary jurisdiction and being time-barred. It was argued that the complainant had not registered the plot in her name for over 39 years. While the cause of action arose in 1979, the complaint was filed in 2018, making it time-barred. The developer had communicated with the complainant about registering the sale deed for the allotted plot and explained that police verification is necessary before proceeding with the registration. Since the matter is still pending in court, no cause of action has arisen for the complainant to file the present complaint. Additionally, the complainant failed to pay non-construction charges beyond 1993, and therefore, there was no service deficiency on the developer's part.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that tt is evident that the complainant had booked the plot in 1977 and paid charges for construction delay to the developer, as allowed by subsequent regulations. The developer acknowledged receiving these charges in 1985, 1993, and 2016. Furthermore, The complainant applied for registration in 2016, and the developer did not cancel the allotment. Instead, the developer informed the complainant that the ownership issue was under police investigation. Given the extension of the construction period after receiving the required fee and the ongoing title investigation in 2017, the developer's argument that the complaint is time-barred from 1977 cannot be accepted. The cause of action is continuous, and since the complaint was filed, it is not considered time-barred. Regarding the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, the commission considered the historical payment made by the complainant in 1977, which amounted to Rs 12,500, but the current value of the plot is Rs 1,00,00,000, which the developer has acknowledged. The commission cited previous rulings, including Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd. and Renu Singh vs. Experion Developers Pvt Ltd, wherein the commission established that the cumulative value of the claim determines the pecuniary jurisdiction. In this case, the complainant has asserted a claim of Rs 1,50,00,000/-, relying on the developer's plot valuation. Consequently, the commission upheld the complainant's right to approach the commission within its jurisdiction through this complaint. Notably, the complainant is seeking possession rather than a refund, rendering the objection raised by the developer untenable.

The commission directed the developer to give the complainant the plot within six months, failing which they must provide a similar plot within the next six months. If that is not fulfilled, the developer must compensate the complainant with Rs 50,00,000 at 9% interest from the complaint filing date within two months. Any delay in compliance will incur a penal interest of 12% until settled, and the developer must cover the complainant's litigation costs of Rs 25,000.