HUDA AND ORS. Vs. D.P. JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.07.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 1421 of 2009.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent is the owner of preferential plot/ house no. 2605 P, Sector 16, Faridabad and has paid 10% extra price for preferential status of his plot to HUDA authorities. There exists an incidental vacant area ad-measuring 40'x90' adjoining to his house. The area was withdrawn by HUDA Authorities from perpetual leasehold right of 99 years to Employees State Insurance Corporation, Faridabad in order to maintain the preferential character of his plot no.2605 P. This withdrawal of land from ESIC was confirmed by the judgment of Civil Judge, Additional District Judge, Faridabad, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in various judgments. The petitioner/ opposite party had formulated a policy and circulated it vide memo no. A-11-87/7949 64 dated 19.03.1987 through the Chief Administrator HUDA on the subject of allotment of incidental open space to the allottees of a corner plot in various urban estates in Haryana by way of sale to the owners of those adjoining preferential plots. The said area was lying vacant and was being used for dumping of garbage etc., and thus had become a source of nuisance and was a health hazard for the respondent and his family. In accordance with the policy of HUDA mentioned above, the respondent applied for allotment of this incidental area in favour of the respondent on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the policy and on the basis of payment of costs. The petitioner refused to do so. It was on these grounds the present complaint has been filed with a prayer that the petitioner be directed to allot the vacant adjoining site in question in favour of the respondent as per the terms and conditions of the policy framed by the petitioner. The respondent has also moved an application to the effect that the permanent boundary wall be also directed to be built by the petitioner to separate this vacant land belonging to the petitioner from that allotted to ESI Corporation so that dumping of garbage etc., over this vacant land be restricted.

(3.) The petitioner HUDA in their reply had admitted that the area lying vacant adjoining to the plot of the respondent measuring 40x'90' was withdrawn from the ESI Corporation in order to maintain preferential status of the impugned plot and to provide green space adjoining to the house of the respondent. The said area was withdrawn out of the total area of about five acres which had been earlier allotted to ESI Corporation. The petitioners denied that as per the policy of HUDA such land can be allotted in favour of the respondent. The matter of allotment was referred to the District Town Planner, Faridabad and it was reported by him that the adjoining land in question cannot be allotted to the respondent. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.