ANITA CHAUDHARY Vs. ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two Revision Petitions No.103 of 1998 filed by Smt. Anita Chaudhary against the Haryana Urban Development Authority, and No. III of 1998 filed by HUDA against Smt. Anita Chaudhary, as both these revision petitions are against the same impugned order dated 27.8.1998 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, whereby the complainant's execution application for the implementation of the order dated 24.10.1994 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, has been allowed.

(2.) The complainant was allotted plot No.1344 in Sector 23, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, but due to pendency of some litigation the possession of the said plot could not be delivered to the complainant. However, in 1994 the HUDA offered an alternative plot to the complainant, which was somehow or other not acceptable to the complainant and ultimately on 24.10.1994 the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, by allowing her complaint, directed HUDA to allot some other alternative plot in Sectors 15, 21 or 31. However, in the meantime the plot originally allotted to the complainant, i. e. plot No.1344 in Sector 23, Gurgaon, became free from litigation and on 27.11.1995 HUDA was directed to restore the allotment of this very plot to the complainant. HUDA challenged the order in appeal wherein it was agreed in between the parties that the complainant shall forego ker claim to interest on the amount deposited provided the possession of the aforesaid plot No.1344 in Sector 23, Gurgaon, was delivered to her forthwith.

(3.) Despite all this, the compliance of that order was not made which forced the complainant to file the execution application. This application was decided on 29.1.1998 with the direction to deliver possession immediately but HUDA did not implement the order : Yet another execution application was filed on 25.5.1998 in which HUDA gave an undertaking that the possession shall be delivered within four months as the development projects were in progress. However, as HUDA did not deliver the possession despite repeated directions, the execution application has been now allowed on 27.8.1998, whereby the learned District Consumer Forum has directed HUDA once again to deliver the possession of the aforesaid plot and to compensate her by paying interest @ 18% on the amount paid by her. HUDA has been directed to implement the order within two months. Instead of implementing the order, HUDA has filed revision petitions before us on the ground that while disposing of the execution application the learned District Consumer Forum could not modify the earlier order by which the complaint had been allowed. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, has once again pleaded that the learned District Consumer Forum has issued the aforesaid direction only because HUDA has deliberately defied the orders/directions issued by the District Consumer Forum as well as by this Commission.