V.R. ASSOCIATES Vs. ESTATE OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the decree holder in a complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, Jhajhar.

(2.) In a complaint case filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 10.2.2003, the District Forum had directed the respondent/opposite parties to give plot No. 1295 measuring 5,000 sq. yards to the complainant/decree holder on the initial price. It was also directed that if the same plot was not available then some alternative plot of the same size and on the same terms and conditions be given to the complainant within one month along with compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of Rs. 500. An appeal filed by the respondent against this order was dismissed. Subsequently the revision petition filed by the respondent before this Commission was also dismissed. SLP was also filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 8.5.2006, thus, giving the finality to the order of the District Forum. Thereafter an execution application was moved by the petitioner on 26.7.2006. A plot was allotted measuring 5,419.375 sq. mtrs. on 26.6.2006 on payment of Rs. 1,08,338. Payment was made. Now, it was the case of the petitioner/complainant that the plot allotted to him is located at a waste land and having a drain. It was also prayed that the opposite parties be directed to give him plot on some other place may be at Gurgaon, Faridabad or in the surrounding areas of Delhi. The District Forum found that since their order has been complied with the alternative plot has been allotted, they dismissed this application. An appeal filed before the State Commission was also dismissed. Hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) The petitioner in person and is heard. There is no disputing the fact that both the lower Fora have found that the order of the District Forum has been fully complied with, i.e. by allotting a plot measuring 5,000 sq. yards and at the old price. The State Commission recorded that one of the boundaries of the plot is the drain as also have returned the finding that there is a path which is provided leading to their plot. In our view, the State Commission rightly held that just because the said plot is located by the side of the drain, it cannot be said that allotted plot is not in existence. The State Commission has gone through the record as also the layout plan.