MEHAR CHAND Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/complainant, being aggrieved by order dated 27.9.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission') has filed present revision petition.

(2.) It is petitioner's case that respondents/ opposite parties have set up an Urban Estate at Narnaul, Sector-I part 1 for allotment of residential plots to the general public. The acquisition proceedings of Urban Estate were started around the year 1990-1992. After completing the official process, applications were invited from various classes of persons for different types of residential plots. In that process, plot no.463 (4 marla) was allotted by the respondents to Smt. Raj Bala Devi, vide allotment letter dated 15.7.2003. Possession of this plot was delivered to Smt. Raj Bala in the year 2006. Later on, vide reallotment letter dated 5.5.2008, plot in question was allotted to the petitioner and conveyance deed dated 15.12.2008 was executed in his favour. Petitioner completed construction upto DPC level. It is alleged that on 3.1.2009 petitioner was stunned on receipt of notice from the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division, Narnaul) in case titled as "Hargobind vs. HUDA" for initiating contempt proceedings against various authorities as well the petitioner. It was only then petitioner came to know that litigation for plot in question is pending since 2006. At no stage, during last three years respondent disclosed the aforesaid fact to the original allottee or to the petitioner. Thus, petitioner became victim of cheating and fraud played by the respondents. It is further stated that petitioner requested respondents through legal notice to allot him some undisputed plot of 4 marla size or any other suitable size in Sector-1 at HUDA, Narnaul, alongwith compensation of Rs.5 lacs. This all went in vain. Accordingly, petitioner filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul ( for short 'District Forum') seeking compensation of Rs.5 lacs and allotment of a plot as well as sum of Rs.2 lacs being spent on raising the construction.

(3.) Respondents no.1 to 4 in their reply took preliminary objection stating that a civil suit is pending regarding disputed plot in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Narnaul, where contempt proceedings are also pending against respondents and petitioner. As such, present complaint cannot be decided by the District Forum. On merits, respondents admitted the factum of allotment of residential plot in the name of petitioner. Respondents in their written statement had taken the plea that since plot no.463 allotted to the petitioner is disputed one, as such petitioner shall have to wait till the decision of the dispute or can take refund of the amount deposited by him with interest as per respondent's rule.