HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJ DULHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The all important question that arises for adjudication in this petition filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter described as HUDA) for quashing the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh (for short, the District Forum) and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short, the State Commission) is whether the District Forum could direct the allotment of a residential plot to respondent No. 1 even though draw of lots was not held by the competent authority due to non-availability of land and pending litigation.

(2.) The facts necessary for deciding the above question are that in pursuance of advertisements issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA in 1984, 1280 persons including respondent No. 1 submitted applications for allotment of 10-marla plots in Sector 23, Urban Estate, Faridabad. However, draw of lots could not be held due to pending of two-prolonged litigation, one between the land owners and HUDA and the other between HUDA and the unauthorised occupants who squatted over the land in the name of Sanjay Colony. Having realised that HUDA may not be able to allot plots to those who had applied for 10-marla plots in Sector 23, the Estate Officer issued memo No. 23/2511 dated 19-2-1986 to the applicants giving them option to seek refund of the earnest money deposited by them. In pursuance of this communication, 1238 out of 1280 applicants withdrew their earnest money. Respondent No. 1 was among the remaining 42 applicants who did not seek refund although vide memo No. P-114 dated 26-5-1992, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad asked her to intimate whether or not she had sought refund. Thereafter, the amount of earnest money was sent to respondent No. 1 vide Cheque No. 0407928 dated 15-7-1993. In the meantime, she served notice of demand dated 2-7-1993 upon the authorities of HUDA seeking allotment of plot and as she did not get any favourable response, respondent No. 1 instituted a complaint before the District Forum under Ss. 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the 1986 Act) and prayed that respondent-HUDA (petitioner herein) be directed to allot a 10 marla plot either in Sector 23 or in any other well developed sector in Faridabad on same rates, terms and conditions on which plots were offered to the public in the year 1984. In the alternative, she prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lacs.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by the District Forum, the Chief Administrator, HUDA and the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad filed a joint reply to contest the claim of respondent No. 1. They objected to the maintainability of the complaint and urged that the District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to direct allotment of plot. They also pleaded that in view of the abandonment of the scheme of Sector 23 due to massive encroachment and pending litigation, no relief should be given to the complainant.