# HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJE RAM

- **Citation:** [2008] 16 S.C.R. 601
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-10-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2381 of 2003
- **Bench:** R. V. Raveendran, Aftab Alam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/haryana-urban-development-authority-v-raje-ram-23909
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

INTEREST:
A
B
Allotment of plots to re-al/otees by Development Authority C
- Delay in delivery of possession - Re-allottee invoking
provisions of Consum~r Protection Act - Consumer forums
awarding interest to re-allottees - HELD: Claimants are not
the original allottees - In spite of knowing the fact of delay in
delivery of possession, and the time not being essence of the o
contract, they accepted re-allotment - They ~ven did not pay
-1
full price when they approached the District Forum - In the
circumstances, award of interest was neither warranted nor
justified - Orders of District Forum, State Commission and
National Consumer Redressal Commission set aside -
E
Development Authority entitled to restitution and recover back
i
the amount paid - Consumer Protection ;;ict, 1986 - Award
of interest to re-al/ottee of plot - Urban Development.
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh 2004
(5) SCC 65; HUDA v. Darsh Kumar 2005 (9) SCC 449 and
F
Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank 2007 (6)
sec 711, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2005 (9) sec 449
2004 (5) sec ss
2001 (6) sec 111
relied on
relied on
. relied on
601
para 6
para 7
para 7
G
H
602·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R
A·

## Text

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 601
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
RAJE RAM
(Civil Appeal No. 2381 of 2003)
OCTOBER 23, 2008
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
INTEREST:
A
B
Allotment of plots to re-al/otees by Development Authority C
- Delay in delivery of possession - Re-allottee invoking
provisions of Consum~r Protection Act - Consumer forums
awarding interest to re-allottees - HELD: Claimants are not
the original allottees - In spite of knowing the fact of delay in
delivery of possession, and the time not being essence of the o
contract, they accepted re-allotment - They ~ven did not pay
-1
full price when they approached the District Forum - In the
circumstances, award of interest was neither warranted nor
justified - Orders of District Forum, State Commission and
National Consumer Redressal Commission set aside -
E
Development Authority entitled to restitution and recover back
i
the amount paid - Consumer Protection ;;ict, 1986 - Award
of interest to re-al/ottee of plot - Urban Development.
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh 2004
(5) SCC 65; HUDA v. Darsh Kumar 2005 (9) SCC 449 and
F
Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank 2007 (6)
sec 711, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2005 (9) sec 449
2004 (5) sec ss
2001 (6) sec 111
relied on
relied on
. relied on
601
para 6
para 7
para 7
G
H
602·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R
A·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
~·
2381 of2003.
From the final Order and Judgment dated 27.8.2002 of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
B
Delhi ·in Revision Petition No. 2173 of 1999.
WITH
· G.A. No. 2382/2003 and C.A. No. 3413/2003.
c
Satinder S. Gulati, Dr. Kailash Chand and Kamaldeep
Gulati for the Appellant.
'
Jaspreet Gogia for the Respondent.
C-
"
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
D
ORDER
'
These appeals by special leave challenge three identical
;.
..
orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
E
Commission ('National Commission' for short).
CA No. 2381/2003 [HUDA vs. Raje Ram]
2. Plot No. 545, Sector 14, Hissar was allotted to Madanlal
on 12.12.1986. The allottee had deposited 25% of the cost of
F
the plot. On 15.1.1993, the appellant notified the revision of
price.from Rs.224.90 to Rs.301.70 per sq. yard and gave an
t
option to the allottee to either accept the revision or receive
back :the initial deposit with interest at 10% per annum. The •
allottee and. respondent sought transfer of allotment to the name
G
of respondent. The request was accepted and the appellant re-
.
.
·allotted the plot to the respondent vide letter dated 15.3.1994
,/
subje't~t to payment of extension fee. Aggrieved. by .the non-
..
.,
delivery of possession of the allotted" pfot, resp.o.ndent
approached tbe District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum,
Hissar in the year 1997. The appellant contested the claim on
H several grounds. The appellant also offered possession of the

604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
"
A CA. No. 3413/2003 fHUDA vs. Sunil Kumar]
4. Plot No. 1051, Sector 14-P, Hissarwas allotted to one
_)
Anjani Kumar-on 21.3.1986. By letter dated 5.8.1989, the
appellant offered to refund the deposit if he did not want to wait
B till the development was completed. In 1993, the appellant
notified the revision of price which was not paid. The original
allottee sought transfer of allotment to the name of respondent
and the appellant permitted the transfer on 9. 7 .1996 and reallotted the plot to the respondent by re-allotment letter
c no.14662 dated 21.8.1996 subject to payment of extension fee.
Alleging non-delivery of possession of the allotted plot,
respondent filed .Complaint no.451 /1997 before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar, seeking interest
on the amounts deposited, from the date of payment, among
D
other reliefs. The appellant contested the claim. The District
Forum by order dated 15.4.1998 directed the appellant to pay
interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the respondent on the
amounts deposited from the expiry of two years from the date
of deposit till the date of offer of possession. The appellant
challenged the award of interest by filing an appeal before the
E State Commission. The appellant also offered possession of
the plot on 25.11.1998. The State Commission reduced the
interest from 18% per annum to 15% per annum from the date
of re-allotment till delivery of possession, by order dated
10.5.1999.
F
t
<;
The common issue
/
I
}
5. The appellants challenged the said orders of State
Commission contending that no interest was payable. The
G
National Consumer Redressal Commission by its. non-speaking
orders dated 27.8.2002, 30.9.2002 and 27.8.2002, disposed
of the said revisions filed by the Deyelopn'1ent Autho'rity, in
•
terms of its earlier decision in Haryana l.:Jrban Development
Authority vs. Darsh Kumar (Revision Petition No. 1197/1998
decided on 31.8.2001) by merely observing that it had upheld
H the award of interest upto 18% per annum in similar
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJE 605
RAM
1
circumstances. The National Commission did not refer to or A
consider the facts of these cases. The said orders are
challenged in these appeals by special leave. The common
issue in all these cases is whether interest could have been
awarded against the appellant, and if so whether the rate of
interest is excessive.
B
r
6. The decision of National Commission in Darsh Kumar,
followed in the impugned orders, did not find favour of this Court
in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar - 2005 (9) SCC 449. This Court
observed that where possession is given at the old rate, the c
party bas got the benefit of escalation in price of land, and
therefore, there cannot and should not be award of interest on
the amounts paid by the allottee on the ground of delay in
allotment. On the special facts of that case, this Court however
awarded compensation for harassment/mental agony.
D
7. Respondents in the three appeals are not the original
-1
allottees. They are re-allottees to whom re-allotment was made
by the appellant in the years 1994, 1997 and 1996 respectively.
They were aware, when the plots were re-allotted to them, that
there was delay (either in fOi'ming the layout itself or delay in
E
delivering the allotted plot on account of encroachment etc). In
spite of it, they took re-allotment. Their cases cannot be
compared to cases of original allottees who were made to wait
for a decade or more for delivery and thus put to mental· agony
and harassment. They were aware that time for performance
F
was not stipulated as the essence of the contract and the .
original allottees had accepted the delay. The appellant offered
possession to respondents (re-allottees) and they took
possession of the respective plots on 27.6.2002, 21.3;2000,
and 13.9.1999 respectively ... They approached the District G
>--
Forum in 1997, within a short period from the dates of re-
--
1
allotment in their favour. They had not paid the full price when
they approached the District Forum. In the circumstances,
having regard to the principles laid down by this Court in
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh - 2004 (5) H
--
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 16 S.C.R.
A
SCC 65; .Darsh Kumar (supra) and Bangalore Development
Authority v. Syndicate Bank - 2007 (6) SCC 711, we are of
the view that the award of interest was neither warranted nor
justified.
8. We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the
8
impugned orders of the District Forum, State Commission and
National Commission awarding interest. The complaints stand
dismissed.
9. The appellant states that· it had paid interest in
C pursuance of the State Commission's orders as there was no
order of stay, to the respondents in two of the app~als
(Rs.23308/-was paid to respondent in CA No. 2381/2003 on
14.10.1999 and Rs. 70572/-was paid to the respondent in CA
3413/2003 on 13,7.1999). If so, the appellant is entitled to
o restitution and it can recover back the amounts paid to the
respective respondent.
RP.
Appeals allowed.
t
I·
-·