1. THIS is an appeal against the Order of 27th April, 1992 of the State Commission of Haryana in Complaint Case No. 17 of 1991. The State Commission dismissed the complaint because it did not find any merit therein.
2. THE complaint is with reference to the enhancement of the charges for the land acquired and sold and levy of extension fee.
The appellant was allotted a plot of land by the Respondent, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation in 1985 in Phase IV in the industrial complex. Dundahere, Udyog Vihar Phase IV Gurgaon). Though the tentative price for a plot in Phase IV at that point of time was Rs. 120/- per sq. meter, as special case, the appellant was charged the tentative price for the plots falling in Phase III viz. Rs. 36.78 Ps. per sq. meter. The price of the plots was subsequently increased in 1988 by Rs. 75/- per sq. meter as a result of the enhanced compensation granted by the Additional District Judge in April, 1983. This increase in price was for plots falling in both the Phases III and IV. There was a second revision of the compensation payable for the land acquisition by the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the year 1984. As a result of this enhancement the prices of the plots in Phase IV was further enhanced by Rs. 180/- per sq. meter in 1991.
3. THE grievance of the complainant is that there was no increase in the price of plots falling in Phase III. Since at the time of allotment in 1985 it had been agreed, as a special case, that the price charged would be Rs. 36.78 Ps. per sq. meter as applicable to the plots in Phase III, he should be exempted from the levy of the enhanced price of Rs. 120 per sq. meter.
4. AS pointed out by the State Commission there was a clear agreement between the appellant/complainant and the respondent, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, which expressly lays down that the allottee has to pay to the Corporation any additional amount which may have to be paid by the Corporation to the Government on account of increase in the cost of land etc. as a result of any award by the Court of Law under the Land Acquisition Act. The complainant had agreed to and was bound to pay the enhancement and tentative cost price resulting from any order of the Court of Law under the Land Acquisition Act. If there was no enhancement in the price of the plot falling in Phase III this does not mean that the appellant would be exempt from such enhancement in relation to plots in Phase IV. Land acquisition charges are specific to each case and there is bound to be differences in the compensation payable for different lands acquired in different phases. So the State Commission has rightly come to the conclusion that there is not the least semblance of infirmity in the demand made as a result of the enhancement in the prices of the plot. We agree with the conclusion of the State Commission.
As regards the second complaint regarding the extension fee, the appellant was required to complete construction work for setting up a unit for manufacture of E.M.P.S. power supply equipment within 2 years and to start production within 3 years of allotment of the plot. But, there has been a delay of more than 7 years in commissioning the unit even by the extended time of 31st March, 1991. As the State Commission has observed the complainant totally defaulted in this respect and, therefore, the Respondent was totally justified under the terms and conditions of allotment to levy the extension fee. We agree with the finding of the State Commission.
5. WE also consider that the dispute raised by the appellant relates to immovable property and the price chargeable for the property. As such it is not a consumer dispute there is no sale of goods nor any hiring of service for a consideration.
6. THE appeal is dismissed and the Order of the State Commission is confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as costs to the respondents.
