HUDA Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner allotted plot No. 1036, Sector-7, Extn. Gurgaon to the respondent on 22.7.1984. The possession was offered on 29.3.1990. The area of the aforesaid plot was 82 sq. mtrs. After delivery of the possession, the respondent submitted the site plan for necessary approval through his architect in office of the petitioner but the concerned DTP office raised objection with regard to zone permissibility in the rear set back and allowed only 35% ground coverage. The respondent after consulting his architect, addressed a letter dated 6.5.1998 to the petitioner claiming that as per zoning plan, the ground coverage in respect of the plot in question should be 60% instead of 35% and thus, requested to get the zone plan revised. Thereafter, the respondent visited the office of the petitioner several times. Respondent also cited the example of adjoining plot No. 1037 plot wherein 60% area was covered. Petitioner did not accept his request. Being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(2.) District Forum after taking into consideration, pleadings and evidence produced by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to permit the complainant 60% covered area as had been permitted to be done by the owner of the plot No. 1037. It was also observed that petitioner had failed to provide the documents required by the respondent. Petitioner was also directed to extend the period of two years for the purpose of extension fee as the complainant could not construct the house due to the negligence of the petitioner.

(3.) Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The State Commission observed in its order thus : "Admittedly, the plot No. 1036, Sector-7, Extn. Gurgaon was allotted to the complainant on 22.7.1984 and physical possession thereof was offered on 29.3.1990. The area of the aforesaid plot is 82 sq.mtrs. The complainant had got checked the plan from District Town Planner on 1.5.1998. It has also come on record that in the adjoining plot No. 1037 which is just next to the plot of the complainant, a construction was raised by the allottee to the extent of 60%. It has also come on record that during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application. Under Section 12 of the C.P. Act for directing the opposite parties to place on record the entire correspondence between C.T.P., HUDA and Administrator HUD A, Gurgaon with regard to the revised zoning plan of plot No. 1036, Sector-7, Extn. Gurgaon but the opposite parties failed to furnish any record in this regard. In other words, there was no change in the rules of the HUDA with respect to the coverage area by the allottees as claimed in the written statement. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear on record that HUDA - opposite parties were under an obligation to sanction the site plan of the complainant by granting him permission to raise construction over 60% area of the plot No. 1036, Sector 7, Extn. Gurgaon. No interference in the impugned order is called for."