RAJNISH CHANDER SHARDA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts of this Complaint are as under: The complainant Shri Rajnish Chander Sharda was allotted 250 sq. yds. plot, plot No. 1144 in Section 28 on 10th May, 1979 by HUDA (this plot was allotted in lieu of 160 sq. yds. plot allotted earlier in March, 1979). The Complainant asked for possession of the plot in 1982 so as to construct a house thereon. He was granted Possession Certificate. Thereafter, he approached a contractor and an architect for the purpose of construction of a house on the plot. But, on approaching the HUDA for actual physical possession, it was discovered that a factory existed on the plot. He was also told that the factory would be removed by December, 1982. However, the S.D.E., Faridabad, is said to have informed the complainant allottee after inspection that the possession of Plot No. 1144 in Sector 28 could be handed over to him as a factory exists on the plot and he was advised to ask for an alternative plot as Plot No. 1144 "cannot be vacated at all". He reported these facts to thee E.O. HUDA in September, 1983. The Opposite Party HUDA, however, did not make any alternative allotment at this point of time. On the other hand, the Opposite Party HUDA asked in 1986 a sum of Rs. 3,455/-towards enhancement of the compensation for the acquisition of the said plot whose possession could not be given because of the existence d( a factory thereon.

(2.) ON 18th May, 1990, i.e. after the elapse of 11 years the HUDA allotted a plot No. 2125 in Sector 28 to the Complainant in place of Plot Mo. 1144 allotted in 1979. From the letter of allotment of 18th May, 1990 it is seen that the fresh allotment was made in place of Plot No. 1144 allotted already unilaterally and without giving any reasons.

(3.) HOWEVER , in spite of these communications from the Complainant, HUDA issued Possession Certificate to the Complainant on 25th August, 1993. According to the Complainant, thereafter he engaged an architect for the second time to make a house plan and paid fees for the approval of the said plan and also the penalty for extension for the time to build. But, HUDA did not sanction the plan because the plot was in the possession of Ch. Rajinder Singh. By its letter of 20th October, 1S93 the Respondent HUDA informed the Complainant that, inter alia, this plot belonged to Chaudhary Rajinder Singh and that it was not available for allotment. As such, the building plan could not be approved.