Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and the respondents regarding the encroachment on a plot allotted to them. The plot, originally allotted to Shri Champat Jain in January 1986, was sold to Devender Yadav and Narender Yadav, who subsequently sold it to the respondents in January 2006. After a year and three months, the respondents filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in service due to encroachment on the plot. The District Forum ruled in favor of the respondents, directing HUDA to allot an alternative plot based on a report from a Junior Engineer indicating encroachment. This decision was upheld by the State Commission and the National Commission. However, the Supreme Court found that the finding of deficiency in service was erroneous, as possession had been delivered free from encumbrances to the original allottee, and there was no obligation on HUDA to ensure the plot remained free from encroachments after possession was taken. The court noted that the respondents did not raise any objections at the time of the sale regarding the plot's area or encroachments. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower forums, and dismissed the complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - Liability for Encroachment - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12 - The court held that the appellant could not be held liable for encroachments made after possession was delivered to the original allottee, as there was no provision for redelivery of possession to transferees. The respondents failed to raise objections regarding encroachments at the time of sale, indicating their acceptance of the plot's condition (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Haryana Urban Development Authority is obliged to ensure that no encroachment is made on the plot allotted after possession has been delivered.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Forum and State Commission, and dismissed the respondents' complaint, stating that HUDA could not be held responsible for encroachments made after possession was delivered.
Law Points
- Consumer protection
- deficiency in service
- encroachment liability
- possession delivery
- allotment regulations
