PUSHPA DEVI Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Haryana Urban Development Authority had advertised for allotment of residential plots in Sector 23 and 23-A in Phase II at Gurgaon on the basis of a draw of lots. The relevant brochure with regard thereto was published and in response thereto Pushpa Devi complainant put in an application dated 20th of June, 1986 alongwith deposit of Rs.2876/- for the allotment of a six marlas plot at the rate of Rs.213.06 paise per square meter. Apparently under some misapprehension it was averred that the said application was not registered by the Haryana Urban Development Authority and no registration number therefor was recorded and consequently the same was not included in the draw of lots. This was held later on the 7th of August, 1986. On that premise it had been averred that if the application of the complainant had been included in the draw of lots, there was every possibility of her getting a valuable plot allotted and therefore she was gravely prejudiced. It is then her case that she represented to the opposite parties vide an application dated 14th of January, 1987 (Annexure III) which was duly forwarded to the authority vide (Annexure IV) but no step for redressal of her grievance was taken and she was not informed as to why her application was not registered and not included in the draw of lots. Reliance is sought to be placed on (Annexure V) a copy of the order of the State Commission in an altogether different case where relief was granted to a party whose application had not been registered and not put in the draw. The repeated assertions in the complaint are that the opposite parties are remiss in not registering her application nor including the same in the draw of lots subsequently. The allegation is that consequently she has suffered a loss of more than Rs.1,70,000/- due to the escalated price of the plots of this category.

(2.) It is then the case that the complainant had preferred Civil Writ Petition No.7407 of 1990 before the High Court for seeking relief which was later withdrawn by her on November 11,1992 for seeking redress before this Commission. The claim now is that a residential plot measuring six marlas in Sector 23, 23-A for the original price of Rs.28760/- be directed to be allotted to the complainant with costs or in the alternative to pass such order or direction as may be deemed fit with costs of these proceedings.

(3.) In the reply filed on behalf of the opposite parties by the Estate Officer, HUDA at Gurgaon the factum of the complaint having put in her application alongwith earnest money is admitted. However the firm stand is that the said application was duly registered and No.42630 was allotted to the complainant. Equally the said application with the registration number was included in the draw of lots conducted on the 7th of August, 1986 but the complainant was unsuccessful therein.