GUNJAN Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint was filed, inter did, alleging that plot No. 656, measuring 420 sq. mtrs. in Sector 15, Part-I, Gurgaon was allotted to Smt. Sumitra Devi vide Memo No. 30 dated 20.1.1987 by Haryana Urban Development Authority-opposite party for a total consideration of Rs. 1,39,750. Smt. Sumitra Devi transferred the plot in favour of Smt. Bimla Devi Yadav with the permission of the Estate Officer, Gurgaon. Smt. Bimla Devi Yadav transferred the plot in favour of the complainant with the permission of the said Estate Officer and same was re-allotted to the complainant vide Memo No. 1588 dated 9.11.1990 by the opposite party-Authority. Estate Officer, Gurgaon vide Memo No. 1314 dated 24.1.1992 offered possession of plot No. 656 to the complainant. It was further alleged that wide Memo No. 287 dated 29.10.1992 the Estate Officer, Gurgaon allotted alternative plot No. 636-C in Sector 15 in lieu of plot No. 656 to the complainant. Memo No. 287 notices that plot No. 656 could not be adjusted on the site due to the fact that some pockets were short of the area shown in the Lay out Plan while some of the pockets had excess area. Opposite Party-Authority earmarked new plot Nos. 636-A to 636-H in the original row of plot Nos. 636 to 667 in which plot No. 656 was situated. Said Memo further notices that plot No. 654 to 656 were deleted from the said row. It was claimed that the market value of new plot No. 636-C is much less compared to value of plot No. 656. It was pleaded that the complainanthad come to know that the then Chief Administrator of the opposite party-Authority did the said exercise in order to favour certain VIPs. Action of the Authority in deleting plot No. 656 was wholly arbitrary. Attributing deficiency in service, direction was sought to be passed against the opposite party to deliver possession of aforesaid plot No. 656; pay compensation on account of escalation in construction cost amounting to Rs. 27,89,876 calculated as per CPWD rates; pay compound interest of Rs. 4,50,000, pay compensation for mental agony amounting to Rs. 25 lakh; pay loss of earning of rent of Rs. 11,11,320; pay escalated charges paid to the Architect amounting to Rs. 55,798; pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for pursuing the case as also the cost, to the complainant.

(2.) At this juncture reference need be made to the order dated 15th December, 2008. Omitting immaterial portion, the same reads thus:

(3.) At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that one of the pleas taken in joint written version is that the complaint is barred by limitation. During the course of arguments this plea was strongly pressed on behalf of the opposite party-Authority by Mr. Badhran, Advocate. In para No. 2 of the complaint the complainant has alleged that complaint is being filed within the period of two years as prescribed by Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). Para No. 2 of the complaint being material, is reproduced below: