RAJINDER SINGH BHATI Vs. HUDA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Complainant applied for the allotment of a plot, measuring 6 marlas in Sector 21 -D, Faridabad (Haryana), developed by the Respondent/Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in response to their advertisement and brochure to this effect. The application was made vide application No. 59090 dated 14.9.2006 and a sum of Rs. 87,183/ - was deposited for the purpose, vide demand draft No.449000 dated 14.9.2006, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ballabgarh (Faridabad). The name of the complainant was registered vide registration No.FBD -21 -D -00267. On 20.3.2007, the draw of lots for the said plots, which were 12 in number measuring 6 marlas each, was held and the proceedings were attended by the Complainant as well. 8 plots were allotted to the oustees of the land in question and for the remaining 4 plots, a draw of lots was held, taking all these four plots in the general category. The contention of the Complainant is that he should have been considered for allotment in the Defence Personnel (DEPER) Category, being an Ex -serviceman. The Complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.3.2007 to the OPs/Respondents, asking them to allot an alternative plot to him, but the Respondents refused to accept his request. The consumer complaint in question was then filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'the District Forum'), Faridabad, seeking directions to the OP/HUDA to allot a 6 Marla plot in Sector 21 -D, Faridabad and also to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - for mental harassment, etc., and Rs. 5500/ - as litigation cost.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the OP/HUDA by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which it was stated that the name of the complainant was also considered in general category in the draw of lots held on 16.03.2007, but since he was unsuccessful, his earnest money, i.e., Rs. 87,183/ - had already been refunded to him, vide cheque No. 42820 dated 1.8.2007. The OP stated that there were only 12 plots of 6 marlas each, as stated in the brochure of the scheme for allotment to various persons including the owners of the land which was acquired for the said sector. It was stated in the said advertisement/brochure itself that the oustees of the land were also required to submit applications, alongwith 10% earnest money for allotment of residential plots as per HUDA policy in accordance with the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the process, out of 12 plots, 8 plots were allotted to the oustees of the land in question and for the remaining 4 plots, draw of lots was conducted and all the applications received including that of the Complainant were included in the draw. Since the Complainant could not succeed in the draw of lots, he had no reason to feel aggrieved against the OP in any manner.

(3.) The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, ordered to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - to the Complainant and also directed that a cheque of Rs. 87,183/ - which was stated to have been returned to the Complainant, should be issued again, if the earlier cheque had not been encashed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the OP/HUDA challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order; the Petitioner/Complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.