HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SIMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana Urban Development Authority has come up in appeal against the order dated 23rd December, 1997 passed by learned District Forum, Faridabad, whereby complaint of one Smt. Simar Kaur alleging deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of residential plot has been allowed by issuing the following direction : "apparently, there appears to be no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Still, keeping in view the fact that the complainant is a widow lady and might have to live all alone excepting on occasions where her sons would be paying visits to her house. The surroundings of the village would not make her feel secure. So, from the point of view of safety and security of life of a widow lady, the complainant be allotted a better located alternate plot of the same size - not necessarily a corner plot and at the same rate in the same sector. If no such plot is available in Sector 46 then in any other equally developed adjoining sector. The complainant has not led any evidence with regard to sufference of pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss and, therefore, no amount on account of damages is being awarded. No orders as to costs as well. "

(2.) The complainant had approached the District Forum with the grievance that even though she had purchased by transfer a residential plot No.163 measuring 350 square yards in Sector 46, Faridabad from the original allottee Smt. Nirmal Kaur and the transfer had also been allowed by HUDA on 16th June, 1995, yet the possession thereof was not delivered to her by HUDA on the ground that the plot was under litigation. Alternative plot No.188-ZP, Sector 46, Faridabad was allotted by demanding additional cost of 10% as the plot was preferential one. According to the complainant, who is a widow and her one son was living in Germany and the second son was working in Andhra Pradesh newly allotted plot was not suitable to her from the security point of view as she had to live alone and the plot was a corner one adjoining to a village Mewla Maharajpur. In their reply the HUDA pleaded that the new plot and the area surrounding the same were almost developed and therefore, the complaint should be dismissed without granting any other relief to her. However, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by issuing the aforesaid direction. Despite that the HUDA has come up in appeal against the aforesaid order and the learned Counsel for the appellant-HUDA has vehemently contended that when a corner plot which is a preferential one, had once been allotted to the complainant, no matter she is a widow, HUDA should not have been directed to allot some other plot. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant we do not find any merit in the contention. Once the learned District Forum has exercised their discretion in accordance with law keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the complainant, especially the fact that the earlier plot No.163 allotted to her was under litigation and possession thereof was not delivered to her, she was entitled to a substituted plot in exchange therefor in any other sector. Denial of this right to her clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of HUDA. Otherwise also, HUDA cannot compel the complainant to accept the corner preferential plot which is bordering a village as conceded by the Law Officer of HUDA before the District Forum. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dispose of the same with the direction that HUDA shall allot to the complainant a residential plot at the same rate at which the plot was originally allotted to her No.163 measuring 350 square yards in any developed adjoining sector, other than Sector 46. Allotment of this plot shall be made positively within a period of one month. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.