SUKH RAM BISHNOI Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition Nos.1066 and 1067 of 2011 were filed by the Applicants/Complainants challenging the Order dtd. 21/1/2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in Appeal Nos. 164 and 165 of 2008, whereby the Orders passed the District Forum allowing the Complaints were set aside and Appeals filed by the Opposite Party/Non-Applicant, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, the HUDA) were allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mr. Jora Ram Bishnoi, the Complainant in RP No. 1066 / 2011, (hereinafter 'Complainant'), had applied for allotment of 8 marla plot under the 'Discretionary Quota' (hereinafter 'DQ') in 1986 depositing ?3,883/- as earnest money. Following a change of the Government, all allotments under this DQ were cancelled. The allottees of the DQ filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana titled 'S.R. Dass Vs. State of Haryana'. The writ was successful and the Hon'ble High Court quashed the orders of cancellation of plots under DQ in 1988. SLP by the Government of Haryana before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. Following this, the Non-Applicant/Opposite Parties - HUDA (hereinafter referred to as the Non-Applicant), vide Memo No. A-22-DQ-768/81 1690 dtd. 9/4/1991, offered allotment of Plot No. 768 in Sector-22, Gurgaon under the DQ to the Complainant, and asked him to deposit ?32,609.10, in order that with ?3,883/- that had already been deposited earlier in 1986, the Complainants would have deposited 25% of the tentative price of the plot. The Complainant, however, failed to deposit this amount. Therefore, the Non-Applicant cancelled the plot and refunded the amount of ?3,883/- deposited by the Complainants vide cheque No. 556526 dtd. 1/9/1997.

(3.) The case of the Complainant was that as per various policies and following judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Non-Applicant had refunded the amount taken for plots to various allottees; however, subsequently Non-Applicant had also issued notice to them for reviving their allotment and re-depositing the amounts required. This facility had not been extended to the complainants despite repeated requests, and this was the deficiency in service which had caused the complainants to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum.