H.U.D.A. Vs. SATISH CHANDER CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) The District Forum had directed the present Petitioner to sanction the site plan submitted by the Complainant in December, 1997 on the old norms of 10% of minimum construction area within one month. The District Forum had given further direction not to charge the extension fee from the Complainant from December, 1997 till the expiry of one year from the date of sanction of the site plan. Besides this a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost. This order was challenged by the present Petitioner before the State Commission. Appeal was filed with delay of 154 days. The State Commission found that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning delay and appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the said appeal. In so far as the question of delay is concerned, the delay in question is 154 days. The explanation given for delay in filing the appeal was that though the copy of the order was delivered to the Petitioner on 4.8.2004 by the District Forum but the same was received by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad only on 9.9.2004. For this, the Petitioner themselves are negligent and responsible. There is, thus, no sufficient cause shown for the said period and the State Commission has very rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

(3.) The State Commission has also dealt with the case on merits and found that the complainant was allotted the plot vide allotment letter dated 30.11.1994 and after delivery of possession of the plot, the complainant submitted building plan to the present Petitioner on 24.12.1997 for approval. However, the approval could not be granted since there was stay from the Hon'ble Apex Court. After the vacation of stay, the complainant found that the plan had not been sanctioned by the Opposite party on account of the fact that the revised plan had to be submitted in view of the fact that the minimum construction area had been revised from 10% to 25%. The new policy came into effect w.e.f. 1.1.1998. The State Commission had mentioned that the complainant had submitted the site plan in December, 1997, therefore the policy floated by the opposite party w.e.f. 1.1.1998 is not applicable for the complainant and we are in complete agreement with the findings arrived at by the State Commission. Even in respect of the direction not to charge the extension fee from the complainant from December, 1997 till expiry of one year from the date of sanction plan, the same, in our view, is just, fair and equitable and does not call for any interference.