SMT. ANILA GOEL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Sec. 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dtd. 07/02/2011 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1194 of 2007 arising out of the Order dtd. 09/11/2004 of the District Commission in complaint no. 139 of 1999.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent development authority.

(3.) Brief chronology leading to the revision is that a plot admeasuring 813.73 sq. m. was originally allotted by the development authority to one Mr. Devinder Kumar vide allotment letter dtd. 07.02.1986 and a conveyance deed was executed. The said Mr. Devinder Kumar, the original allottee, sold the plot to one Mrs. Anila Goel, a subsequent purchaser, who is the complainant herein. Prior permission of the development authority was not taken. The complainant took possession of the subject plot and a sale-deed was executed on 26.06.1991. The complainant made a request to the development authority on 12.04.1995 to transfer the plot in her name. The development authority resumed the subject plot (as allotted to Mr. Devinder Kumar, the original allottee) on ground of non-construction vide letter dtd. 08.06.1998. Appeal preferred to the Administrator of the development authority by Mrs. Anila Goel, the subsequent purchaser, was dismissed vide order dtd. 20.04.1999. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission on 05.05.1999. The District Commission vide its Order dtd. 09/11/2004 quashed the resumption order passed by the development authority and directed it to transfer the subject plot in the name of the complainant after receiving the necessary transfer fee. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dtd. 07/02/2011 accepted the appeal of the development authority and set aside the Order of the District Commission and dismissed the complaint.