HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the DF where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner, HUDA.

(2.) Breif facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a plot by the petitioner in July, 1982. The construction was completed but when the complainant approached the petitioner for occupation certificate, the latter raised a demand of Rs. 6,300/- as extension fee and Rs. 53,808/- as composition fee. As per complainant she had already paid Rs. 36,197/- as extension fee on 4.4.1997. Since there is no violation of the 'plan' of the honse, no composition fee can be levied. After hearing the parties, the District Forum quashed these two demands and directed the petitioner to issue occupation certificate to the complainant within 15 days. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed - hence this revision petition.

(3.) The respondent/complainant remained absent inspite of notice-hence proceeded ex parte.