M.L.AGGARWAL vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 28-9-92 by which his complaint has been dismissed with the observations that he is not entitled to allotment of a plot as his wife had already been allotted a plot and possession of the same had been delivered to her.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant applied for a plot in Rohini Residential Scheme on 24-4-81. Smt. Sudesh Kumari, also applied for allotment ofaplot in the sameschemeon6-4-81.The complainant married heron 8-11-91 .She was allotted a plot measuring 32.2 sq. meters on 10-9-82. Sh Aggarwal the complainant, was allotted a plot measuring 90 sq. meters on 29-11-83 in Sector 5 of Rohini. He filed an application was to the respondent for transfering the plot from Sector 5 to Sector 7 or 8, in 1985. The application was allowed subject to payment of additional amount. However, for a long time plot was not allotted to him in the said two sectors in lieu of his Sector 5 plot.

He filed a complaint before the District Forum that the DDA be directed to allot him a plot in Sector 7 or 8 in lieu of his earlier plot. The complaint was contested by the respondent They pleaded that as the complainant's wife had been allotted a plot, he was not entitled to allotment of a plot in his name in view of the rules framed by the respondent. The learned District Fourm held that the complainant was not entitled to allotment of a plot when his wife had already been allotted a plot. The complainant has come up in appeal against that order to this Commission.

IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the complainant had filed a complaint praying that the respondent be directed to allot a plot to him in Sector 7 or 8 in lieu of the plot allotted to him in Sector 5. In these proceedings the Forum could not decide the entitlement of the complainant to apply for a plot, as a plot had already been allotted to him in Sector 5. We have duly considered the matter and find force in the contention of the learned Counsel. As already mentioned above the complainant filed a complaint for directing the respondent to transfer his plot from Sector 5 either to Sector 7 or Sector 8.The DDA in the meantime cancelled the allotment of the plot of the complainant in Sector 5 vide order dated 6-11-90. The order of cancellation of a plot by the DDA was not the subject matter of the dispute between the parties before the District Forum. Therefore, it should not have gone into the question of vahdity of the order of cancellation of the plot but should have dismissed the complaint.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the appeal set aside the findings of the District FORum that the order of cancellation of the plot is justified, but maintain the order of dismissal of the complaint on different ground. In view of the partial success of the appeal we leave the parties to bear their own costs. The complainant may challange the order of the respondent regarding cancellation of the plot separately, if so advised. Appeal partly allowed.