Judgment:
1. Bhanwar Singh, PresidentâHeard Sri Anil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and revisionist and Sri N.C. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for K.D.A.
2. As the present appeal and revision arise out of the same dispute we take them together for disposal. The dispute subsistÂing between the parties lies in a narrow compass. The crucial question we have been called upon to answer is as to whether the appellant of appeal no.2039/2006 and the revisionist of revision no.129/2008 is unÂder an obligation to deposit the price of the additional land on the enhanced rate as deÂmanded vide letter dated 2.12.2002, even though the appellant/complainant who hapÂpened to be the revisionist of the revision mentioned above deposited the entire money demanded?
3. The complainant was allotted by the KDA a plot of 180 sq. Meters and he deposÂited the entire price of Rs.1,30,000/- in time. Subsequently, the complainant was inÂformed that the adjoining land i.e. 208.13 Sq. Meters may also be allotted to him proÂvided he was willing to pay its price at the then prevailing rates. Whereas the initial allotment was made in the year 1999, the complainant's consent for allotment of the additional land at the then prevailing rate was solicited vide respondent's letter dated 6.3.2000. The total area of the plot had inÂcreased to 388.13 Sq. Meters and the comÂplainant not only submitted in time his willÂingness to accept the additional land and pay its price at the then prevailing rate but also deposited the entire money well in time. However, the respondent did not execute the sale deed soon after the appellant had performed his part of obligation rather alÂlowed a period of six months to lapse and then in Dec. 2002 asked the complainant once again to pay the price of the additional land at the increased rate w.e.f. June 2002. A letter of 2.12.2002 was sent by the AuÂthority and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.2,23,816/-. The complainant felt aggrieved of this demand and filed his comÂplaint which was allowed with a direction to the Development Authority to execute the, sale deed in respect of 388.13 Sq. Meters of land. The complainant however, was agÂgrieved of the District Consumer Forum's direction to pay price at the present rate and the execution petition of the complainant was dismissed by the Forum below on the ground that he failed to deposit the escaÂlated price. A total sum of Rs.6,24,477/- beÂsides general stamp papers of Rs.1,05,800/- was asked for. The complainant has quesÂtioned the propriety of the said order and also the order, whereby his execution petiÂtion has been dismissed.
4. KDA still insists that he should pay the price of the additional land at the reÂvised rate w.e.f. June 2002. Learned counÂsel for the parties are not in a position to disclose as to what was the fate of the land in question at the time of the allotment beÂing made. Learned counsel for the complainÂant with reference to a decision of the NaÂtional Commission in Welfare and Service Organization (Regd.) and another versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others (1(2003) CPJ 234 (NC)) has submitted that the complainant who had deposited the entire price of the land allotted to him well in time cannot be burdened with the enhanced price. Indeed the argument finds valuable support from the above decision. We find from the record that the complainant expressed his willingÂness to accept the additional land of 208.13 Sq. Meter vide his letter dated 06.03.2000 and in compliance to KDA's letter dated 4.5.2002 deposited a sum of Rs.3,39,956/-. Obviously thus in all a sum of Rs.4,69,956/-had been deposited by the complainant. As per his willingness coupled with entire money having been deposited he was enÂtitled to have the sale deed executed in his favour without any loss of time but the KDA did not execute the sale deed despite reÂpeated demands of the complainant. This deliberate delay on the part of the KDA clinches the issue and obviously it amounts the deficiency in service by permitting the time to lapse and then six months after askÂing for a sum of Rs.2,23,816/-. In case there had been an escalation in the price of the land in June 2002, the complainant should have been immediately informed about the said hike but the complainant was not inÂformed about this escalation. Therefore, the complainant cannot be unnecessarily burdened at subsequent stage and asked to deposit the escalated price, thereby taxing him twice with the escalated rate. It may be mentioned at the cost of repetition that the complainant was asked to pay price of additional land in March 2000 at the then prevailing rate and he had promptly conÂceded to the said offer and deposited the price which was subsequently asked for. In this way he was burdened with one escalaÂtion of the price. It may be clarified that he deposited the price of 180 sq. meters, land at the old rate of price and then deposited the price of the additional land measuring 208.13 sq. meter at the then prevailing rate which had by then been revised. Now there was one more escalation in June 2002 to which the complainant is being asked to be subjugated. In our considered opinion the demand for repeated escalation is wholly unjustified and liable to be quashed. The complainant cannot be taxed again and again for the escalated price. If the price is hiked every year and for some reason the sale deed is not executed in his favour, he cannot be asked to deposit the yearly escaÂlated price again and again. We cannot perÂmit this kind of unfair practice being adopted by the KDA.
5. For these reasons we allow the appeal and the revision both. The judgment which is impugned by way of appeal is modified to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to have the sale deed executed in his favour in respect of 388.13 Sq. Meters of land as its price had already been deposited. In other words he will not be asked to pay the prevailing rates as were applicable in the year 2002 or 2006 i.e. at the time of the judgment being passed. The impugned order dated 29.3.2008 challenged by way of revision is hereby quashed with a direction to the Forum below to revive the execution proceedings and ensure that the judgment as modified above is carried out.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the delay in getting possession of the land. Indeed the complainÂant has been litigating his cause for the last twelve years and his money is in. deposit with the coffers of the KDA for the last 10-12 years. A claim for compensation seems to be justified. Following the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in GDA versus Balbir Singh ((2004) 5 SCC 65) and having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case, wherein the complainant would fetch higher Value of his land, an award of interest @ 10% p.a. on a sum of Rs.4,69,956/- will meet the end of justice. Accordingly, we uphold the contention and direct the KDA to pay interÂest on the complainant's money in deposit at the aforesaid rate w.e.f. the date of deÂposit until the sale deed is executed.
7. Both the appeal and the revision are disposed of accordingly.
8. The judgment shall be placed on the record of Appeal No.2039/06 while its copy will be laid on the record of Revision No.129/2008.
Appeal disposed of.