LAWS(HRCDRC)-2010-1-1

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHERBAZ

Decided On January 08, 2010
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
Sherbaz Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the present case in a narrow compass may be noticed as under: Respondent -complainants were allotted a commercial booth bearing No. 46 -P, measuring 10' 1.5" x 24.9" i.e. 27.84 sq. yards situated at R.C.C. Section, Model Town, Fatehabad for a price of Rs. 2,73,100 vide allotment letter No. 12247 dated 11.10.1989. The complainants paid the price of the above said booth site in instalments on different dates from 26.9.1989 to 6.5.1996 as detailed in para No. 2 of the complaint. The opposite party delivered possession of the booth site on 2.12.1996, having width of pavement towards the north side to be 12 ft. The complainants submitted site plan for sanction in order to raise construction on the booth site, which according to complainants was not sanctioned till the filing of complaint before the District Forum.

(2.) M /s. Dahiya Nursing Home, the allottee of S.C.F. 12, 13 and 14 of the same sector filed a civil suit No. l97 -C of 1996 against the complainants as well as the opposite party (HUDA) seeking decree for permanent injunction restraining the complainants and HUDA from encroaching upon and constructing upon the pavements towards the north side of the booth site No. 46 -P claiming the width of said pavement 15' and not 12'. The said suit was decreed on 12.4.2004 and appeal filed by HUDA against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 30.9.2004 by the Court of Shri Randhir Singh, Additional District Judge, Fatehabad.

(3.) IT was the claim of the complainants before the District Forum that in view of judgment and decree passed in favour of M/s. Dahiya Nursing Home, the allottee of S.C.F. 12, 13 and 14, the area of plot No. 46 -P was less. It was also the claim of the complainants that they had earlier filed complaint claiming damages for late delivery of possession till 2.12.1996 and they had been paid Rs. 87,140 by the HUDA in the said complaint, however, the revision against the said order was pending before the Hon ble National Commission on the date of complaint before the District Forum.