VINEET SHRIVASAVA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainants were allotted industrial plot No.95 Pace City-1, Sector-37, Gurgaon. Provisional Letter of allotment dated 4.5.1994 was issued in terms of the said provisional letter of allotment, the Complainants were required to complete certain formalities/conditions within 180 days. The Complainants failed to complete the said formalities/conditions within the stipulated period and as such the provisional letter of allotment of the plot in question was withdrawn by HUDA Authorities vide letter dated 16.11.1995. The Complainants challenge the withdrawal, of the Provisional Letter as also allotment of plot before the Chief Administrator, HUDA. The challenge was dismissed vide order dated 3.6.1998. Thereafter, the Complainants filed complaint before the District Forum on 25.10.2001. the District Forum passed the following order:-

(2.) The order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission found that the complaint was barred by limitation, inasmuch as the provisional letter of allotment of the plot in question was withdrawn on 16.11.1995 whereas the complaint was filed on 25.10.2001, that is to say, about six years after the cause of action. It was also held that the report of Kanungo does not extend the period of limitation. The State. Commission after placing reliance on the judgement of this Commission in Surendra Mohan v. Municipal Corporation and another III (2006) CPJ 136 (NC) = 2010(1) CPC 200 N.C. held that in view of the Complainant having availed remedy by filing appeal before the Chief Administrator, HUDA, he could not be permitted to invoke jurisdiction of District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the complaint was dismissed.

(3.) We have heard Learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the conditions which were imposed in the provisional letter of allotment could not be complied with without the allotment of the plot. The report of the Kanungo shows that the plot, in question, was under litigation upto 26.4.2000.