HUDA Vs. NISHTHA SUHAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for petitioner and respondent.

(2.) RESPONDENT was allotted a residential plot bearing No. 14P in Sector 13, Sonepat, on 20.9.2001 by petitioner. However, due to pendency of proceeding before Hon ble Court, possession of plot could not be delivered to respondent. Aggrieved, respondent having failed in persuading the authority, eventually approached District Forum, filing complaint, which on consideration of pleadings of the parties directed petitioner to allot alternative plot in Sector 7, Sonepat, which was opted by respondent in exchange of plot No. 14P, possession of which could not be delivered. District Forum, in view of time lag, also directed petitioner -authority to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to respondent on deposits made by him along with compensation of Rs. 5,000 for mental agony and harassment. Litigation cost of Rs. 2,000 was also awarded.

(3.) IN appeal that was preferred by petitioner -authority, State Commission having taken notice of delay in re -allotment of plot, has affirmed finding of District Forum. The authorised representative of respondent submits that plot No. 14P was allotted by petitioner -authority and as it was a corner plot it had some advantage for which additional costs was paid by him. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner -authority submits that delivery of plot No. 14P allotted to respondent could not be made over due to pendency of proceedings before Hon ble High Court, which was beyond their control, and eventually having sorted out the issue petitioner -authority allotted plot No. 231 in Sector 13, Sonepat on 10.1.2008. Though we appreciate good gesture of petitioner -authority in allotting alternative plot to respondent, learned Counsel for petitioner would however, resist grant of interest awarded by Fora below.