ESTATE OFFICER, H.U.D.A. vs RAMESH CHAUDHARY

THIS revision is directed against the order of a State Commission dated 26.11.2002 dismissing Appeal No. 221 of 2002 and affirming the order of District Forum dated 4.6.2002 whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to transfer booth site in their record in the name of respondents/complainants and their mother Smt. Budhwanti and to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for escalation in the cost of construction as also costs of proceedings.

FACTS giving rise to this revision, in brief, are these. Respondents and their late mother, Smt. Budhwanti agreed to purchase service booth site No. 175, Sector 16, Panchkula from its original allottees Bhimsen Bansal and others. Original allottees applied for and received permission to transfer the booth site to the respondents and their mother, from Haryana Urban Development Authority, petitioner No. 2 vide letter No. E.O.(P)-95/A9645 dated 2.9.1996 subject to the conditions noted therein. Thereafter, all the formalities were completed by the respondents, their mother as also the original allottees. On the assurance that booth site will be transferred in the record of petitioner No. 2 in the name of respondent and their mother, they paid Rs. 5,50,000/- to the original allottees. However, vide letter dated 12.3.1997, the petitioner No. 2 informed the respondents that transfer of booth site can be allowed only after the original allottees execute the conveyance deed on stamp paper worth Rs. 6,025/-. Since conveyance deed was not executed, the petitioner No. 2 declined to transfer the booth site in favour of respondents and their mother. Complaint filed by the respondents alleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioner No. 2 in not transferring the booth site, it was disposed of by District Forum by the order dated 4.6.2002 in the manner noted above. Only submission advanced by Mr. Ravinder Bawa for petitioners was that as the original allottees had failed to execute conveyance deed in regard to booth site in question in favour of respondents and their mother as required by policy of transfer of petitioner No. 2, the District Forum and State Commission erred in passing the order under challenge. However, the submission is without any merit. Order of State Commission (at pp 1-5) notices that in the transfer permission conveyed through aforesaid letter No. E.O.(P)-95/A9645 dated 2.9.1996, there is no mention of any requirement of execution of conveyance deed for transfer of the booth site; that the Counsel appearing for petitioners was unable to tell as to from which date change in transfer policy was made effective by petitioner No. 2. Presumably, change in transfer policy was made after issue of transfer permission dated 2.9.1996. Change in transfer policy could not have been legally made with retrospective effect to the disadvantage of respondents and their mother. In this backdrop, order under challenge cannot be said to be suffering either from any illegality or jurisdictional error. Petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such. Revision Petition dismissed.