ESTATE OFFICER PUDA Vs. JASPAL SINGH DARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two appeals No. 553 of 1995 and 813 of 1996 filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority against the orders passed by District Forum, Gurgaon with regard to same allottee Mr. S.S. Hans in connection with plot No. 397 -P in Sector 15 -1, Gurgaon. First Appeal No. 553 of 1995 was preferred by HUDA against the order dated 25th August, 1995, whereby the following directions were issued by the learned District Forum, Gurgaon to the appellant HUDA "So it is ordered that the possession of the original plot in case the encroachment is got removed or some alternate plot be allotted to the complainant and possession be delivered within a period of 2 months. In case the possession of the same plot is delivered or of any plot in the same Sector the respondent shall pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant @ 15% p.a. from the date the other persons were delivered the possession. However, in case the possession of some alternate plot is delivered in some other Sector the interest shall be payable from the date of deposit." This order has become infructuous as HUDA has immediately thereafter allotted plot No. 1593 in Sector 15 -11 to the complainant. Since this plot was not a preferential one being not a corner plot and there was unauthorised and unapproved colony with filthy surrounding area, the complainant declined the offer and approached the District Forum with the second complaint, in reply, HUDA however pleaded that the possession of the earlier plot could not be delivered to the complainant due to huge encroachment on the plot and the area around the same. It was further pleaded that now plot No. 1593 in Sector 15 -11 was offered to the complainant on 14th December, 1995 where the development work was in progress and the possession would be delivered very soon. However right upto 7th August, 1996 the day the second complaint was allowed by the learned District Forum the development of the second plot has not been completed by HUDA so far. On the other hand, it has been found by the learned District Forum as a fact that the earlier plot No. 397 -P originally allotted to the complainant which was a preferential corner plot in Sector 15 -1 was still lying vacant, not allotted to any other person and with regard to that plot litigation as well as encroachment thereon no longer existed; meaning thereby that this plot was now fit to be allotted to the complainant and HUDA was in a position to deliver the same to the complainant. That is why the complaint has been allowed with the direction that the possession of the plot originally allotted to the complainant shall be delivered to the complainant forthwith.

(2.) IN the appeal before us, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that no doubt encroachment on the earlier plot and litigation with regard to the same was no longer there, but when alternate plot had already been offered to the complainant, the learned District Forum should not have directed the restoration or re -allotment of the original plot to the complainant. However, we do not agree with the learned Counsel as the complainant having already awaited for more than 10 years is now certainly entitled to the delivery of the plot originally allotted to him and for which he has already deposited a considerable amount. Consequently, we dispose of the appeal No. 813 of 1996 filed by HUDA by directing that the same old plot originally allotted to the complainant shall remain allotted to him and the possession thereof shall be delivered forthwith. Though the complainant has asserted earlier and has reiterated again that all the instalments have already been deposited by him with HUDA, yet if still any amount is outstanding, the payment shall be made by him within a month. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs Appeals disposed of.