HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHEELA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There has been delay of 104 days in filing this revision petition beyond prescribed period of limitation, in respect of which an application for condonation of delay has been filed stating therein that procedure followed by HUDA for preferring revision petition consumed a lot of time. We are not impressed with the reasonings assigned and revision petition merits dismissal for belated filing of revision itself. However, merit of the case has also been considered. Briefly put, facts are that respondent was allotted plot no.2032, Sector-2, Palwal by petitioner-authority on 3rd of January, 2000 on tentative cost of Rs.3,93,741/-. However, possession of plot allotted to respondent could not be delivered due to pendency of courts proceedings. Petitioner-authority subsequent thereto having obtained consent of respondent allotted alternative plot no.1811, Sector-2, Palwal by draw of lots on 2nd of August, 2005. Respondent, however, with a grievance that the alternative plot allotted to her did not have wide road in front of the plot, filed a complaint praying therein for allotment of plot no.13 or 18 in Sector-2. Objections raised by petitioner-authority, however, did not find favour with the District Forum, which, in its conclusive finding, having honoured choice of the respondent, directed petitioner-authority to allot alternative plot no.13 or 18 in Sector-2 or if not possible then any plot in Sector-2, Palwal or adjoining equally developed sector on the same terms and conditions on which the original plot was allotted. Petitioner-authority had also been saddled with financial obligation to pay interest-compensation @ 10% per annum on deposits made by respondent till offer of possession of alternative plot was made. State Commission in appeal both for belated filing of appeal and also on merit having taken notice of the fact that petitioner-authority had already allotted alternative plot no.13 located in Sector-2, Palwal in exchange of plot no.2032/1811, possession of which too was taken by respondent on 15th of April, 2008, dismissed appeal of HUDA.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner, however, referring to affidavit of respondent giving her consent for allotment of alternative plot no.1811, would submit that now she cannot withdraw from acceptance of offer made by petitioner. However, since petitioner themselves, having honoured choice of respondent have allotted plot no.13 in Sector-2, they are estopped to agitate the issue for directing respondent to stick to her consent, more so when she has been put in possession. Any direction for her eviction thereof would be an exercise in reverse order. Consequently, there being no merit the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.