AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER /complainant, being aggrieved by order dated 27.9.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short, ''State Commission'') has filed present re vision petition. It is petitioner''s case that respondents/opposite parties have set up an Urban Estate at Narnaul, Sector -I, Part 1 for allotment of residential plots to the general public. The acquisition proceedings of Urban Estate were started around the year 1990 -1992. After completing the official process, applications were invited from various classes of persons for different types of residential plots. In that process, plot No. 463 (4 marla) was allotted by the respondents to Smt. Raj Bala Devi, vide allotment letter dated 15.7.2003. Possession of this plot was delivered to Smt. Raj Bala in the year 2006. Later on, vide reallotment letter dated 5.5.2008, plot in question was allotted to the petitioner and conveyance deed dated 15.12.2008 was executed in his favour. Petitioner completed construction upto DPC level. It is alleged that on 3.1.2009 petitioner was stunned on receipt of notice from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division, Narnaul) in case titled as "Hargobind v. HUDA" for initiating contempt proceedings against various authorities as well the petitioner. It was only then petitioner came to know that litigation for plot in question is pending since 2006. At no stage, during last three years respondent disclosed the aforesaid fact to the original allottee or to the petitioner. Thus, petitioner became victim of cheating and fraud played by the respondents. It is further stated that petitioner requested respondents through legal notice to allot him some undisputed plot of 4 marla size or any other suitable size in Sector -1 at HUDA, Narnaul, along with compensation of Rs. 5 lacs. This all went in vain. Accordingly, petitioner filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ''District Forum'') seeking compensation of Rs. 5 lacs and allotment of a plot as well as sum of Rs. 2 lacs being spent on raising the construction.
RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 4 in their reply took preliminary objection stating that a civil suit is pending regarding disputed plot in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Narnaul, where contempt proceedings are also pending against respondents and petitioner. As such, present complaint cannot be decided by the District Forum. On merits, respondents admitted the factum of allotment of residential plot in the name of petitioner. Respondents in their written statement had taken the plea that since plot No. 463 allotted to the petitioner is disputed one, as such petitioner shall have to wait till the decision of the dispute or can take refund of (he amount deposited by him with interest as per respondent''s rule. Respondent No. 5 in its reply has stated that it prepares various plans relating to the planning of the sector and the base map of which is supplied by HUDA Authorities.
DISTRICT Forum vide order dated 22.7.2010, dismissed the complaint.
BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which affirmed the order of District Forum, observing mat there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complaint was rightly dismissed. Hence, this petition.
WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
IT is an admitted case that petitioner is a re -allottee of the plot in question, whereas original allottee was Smt. Raj Bala. It is also apparent from the record, that civil suit was filed on 28.3.2006 when petitioner was not in picture at all. Petitioner become owner of the plot in question only in the year 2008 and at that time the civil suit was pending. There is nothing on record to show as to whether original allottee had informed the petitioner about the same. Thus, there has been no concealment on the part of respondents in the present case. Accordingly, there is no deficiency on the part of the respondents. However, in view of the admission made by the respondents in their written statement that "In the present complaint the allotted plot No. 463 is disputed as such the complainant will have to wait up to the decision of the dispute or can take refund of the amount deposited by him with interest as per HUDA Rules.", we, therefore, order that if the petitioner so desires, he can wait till the decision of civil suit or can take refund of the amount with interest as per HUDA Rules.
WITH these observations, present revision petition stand disposed of. No order as to cost.