JUGAL KISHORE MITTAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUGAL Kishore Mittal, the petitioner/complainant was allotted a residential plot NO.2633-P, in Sector-62, Faridabad, Haryana by the Opposite Parties/respondents on 25.06.2003. The complainant had deposited Rs.74,091/- i.e. 10% of the total cost at the time of booking as 'Earnest Money '. The petitioner was required to deposit Rs.1,29,659.25ps, i.e. 15% of the total cost, within 30 days ' from the date of allotment upto 24.07.2003.

(2.) ON 24.07.2003, the petitioner tried to deposit a draft in the sum of Rs.1,29,660/- issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Faridabad, dated 24.07.2003 with the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, respondent No.2. He was asked to collect the receipt on the next day. However, due to the fraud of official of respondent No.2, the said draft was not deposited in the Office of HUDA and the same was returned to the petitioner on 25.07.2003. This story appears to have been made out of whole cloth. Not even an iota of evidence was led to substantiate this version. The names of the officer/officers who allegedly led the complainant up the garden path were never disclosed. For all these reasons, we do not find amenable to this story. Moreover, the counsel for the complainant did not raise this issue before us. It is also difficult to fathom as to how the so called fraud would benefit those officers.

(3.) THE State Commission has referred to few authorities which go to fortify the case of the respondent. In HUDA Vs. M/s. Zuari Industries, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 104 (DB), it was held that since the petitioner had surrendered the plot, therefore, he had no right to get return of the surrendered plot.