PREET KUMAR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Preet Kumar has come up in appeal against the order dated 9.9.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby his complaint against HUDA for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the plot originally allotted to him on 23.1.1986 has been allowed. According to the complainant, residential plot No.367 in Sector 12-A, Gurgaon, was allotted to him but as the said plot was under litigation its possession could not be offered to him for quite some time. Sometime later plot No.895 in Sector 5, Gurgaon, was allotted to him in lieu of the old plot No.367 in Sector 12-A. Since the offer and acceptance of the alternative plot did not mature, the complainant approached the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, for the redressal of his grievance. The learned District Consumer Forum after securing the necessary data with regard to the availability of alternative plots passed the following order : "the complainant has already been allotted alternate plot No.895 in Sector 5. Both Sectors 12 and Sector 5 are towards Delhi from Gurgaon and a road connecting Delhi- Gurgaon passes from Sector 5. So, for the allotment of alternate plot in Sector 5, the complainant cannot have any valid objection. The plot is in the same side of the city towards Delhi and have the same potential value. However, for the delay the complainant deserves to be compensated as he stands deprived of the comforts of living in his own house and the price of the building material has also escalated many times. So, it is ordered that the respondent shall pay interest to the complainant @ 15% p. a. from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession of the plot".

(2.) Though the complaint has been allowed and allotment of an alternative plot has been ordered by the learned District Consumer Forum, yet he has filed the present appeal for clarification regarding the price of the new plot being allotted to him. Learned Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that the complainant had already paid the entire amount, including the enhanced price, as demanded by the respondent- HUDA from time to time but despite all that the possession of the plot originally allotted to him was not offered to the complainant. Since the alternative allotment is in lieu of the original allotment of the plot, the price of the new plot should remain the same.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant as it is correct that the possession of the plot originally allotted to the complainant could not be delivered by HUDA due to pendency of litigation and other administrative exigencies. The allotment of the alternative plot being in lieu of the original one, obviously the price of the alternative plot shall also be the same as was the price of the original plot. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and HUDA is directed to allot and deliver possession of the alternative plot to the complainant in lieu of the original plot on the same price at which the original plot was allotted. There is no order as to costs.