HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana Urban Development Authority has come up in revision against the order dated 1st October, 1996 whereby complaint of one Parveen Kumar has been allowed by the learned District Forum and HUDA has been directed to allot alternative plot either in the same sector i. e. Sector 21 or in the adjoining sector towards Delhi preferably Sectors 31,15 and 40 and possession thereof be delivered within two months.

(2.) According to the complainant, he was allotted a residential plot No.1320 in Sector 21 in the year 1985, but the possession of the plot was not handed over to him, which prompted him to approach the District Forum after 10 years i. e. on 31st October, 1995. His Complaint No.955 was accepted on 16th January, 1996 and HUDA was directed to allot alternative plot in Sectors 39,40, 45 and 46 and also to pay interest @ 15% p. a. on the amount deposited by the complainant. Since the order was not implemented, the complainant filed the execution application on 12th July, 1996, which has now been allowed on 1st October, 1996 by issuing the aforesaid directions.

(3.) In the revision before us, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the very scope of the complaint has been widened by the learned District Forum by specifying the sectors and the plots. On the other hand, it has been stated by the complainant, who is appearing in person along with his father Shri R. P. Singh, that they had already stated before the learned District Forum that if possession of the earlier plot could not be delivered by HUDA to the complainant number of other plots were also available, which could be allotted to the complainant. These plots were available in Sectors 39, 40, 45 and 46 and were also so available in Sectors 31,15 and 40; their only anxiety was that the complainant being employed in Delhi, the plot should be towards Delhi and not to the other side. It has further been stated by them that the Estate Officer, Gurgaon had already recommended and forwarded a communication to the Chief Administrator, HUDA on 11th October, 1996 for the allotment of plot No.774 in Sector 31, which was available for such allotment. A photostat copy of the communication made by the Estate Officer to the Chief Administrator, HUDA vide Memo No.14305 dated 11th October, 1996 had been produced before us and was shown to the learned Counsel for the petitioner-HUDA. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and also having gone through the record, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum. In fact, the HUDA should have made the alternative allotment much earlier, but in any case, now since the learned District Forum has directed them to do so and the Estate Officer has already made the recommendation on 11th October, 1996 that plot No.774 in Sector 31 be allotted to the complainant, we dismiss the revision by directing HUDA to allot plot No.774, Sector 31 in favour of the complainant as recommended by their own Estate Officer, Gurgaon on 11th October, 1996 and so directed by the learned District Forum by order dated 1st October, 1996. This shall be done positively within one month as the matter has already been considerably delayed since initial allotment was made as back as in 1985. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.