H U D A Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this Revision Petition was complainant before the District Forum. The respondent was allotted a plot in Sector 11 -12, Part -II, Urban Estate, Panipat. Possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant as an unauthorised colony in the name and style of Gandhi Dham Colony had been constructed there. The complainant approached the District Forum with a request that he may be allotted an alternative plot in lieu of the plot already allotted to him. The H.U.D.A. contested the claim of the complainant. The District Forum, after due consideration, allowed the complaint and directed the HUDA that in lieu of plot No. 1350 -P in Sector 11 -12, Phase -II, Urban Estate, Panipat, Plot No. 304 -B in the same sector be allotted to the complainant within one month, failing which, the respondent would be liable to pay Rs. 500/ - as costs/penalty for each day of default. H.U.D.A. was not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum and preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Revision Petition.

(2.) MR . Ravindra Bana appearing on behalf of the H.U.D.A. contended that the State Commission and the District Forum ought to have noticed that the plot which was directed to be allotted to the complainant fell within discretionary quota plot and the litigation with regard to that plot was pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. In view of the litigation, the H.U.D.A. was unable to allot the specific plot to the complainant. Mr. Bana sought further time to file an affidavit dealing with the latest position in respect of the plot.

(3.) AFTER considering the material placed on record, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Forum directing H.U.D.A. to allot the complainant Plot No. 304 -B in Sector 11 -12, Part -II, Panipat and affirmed by the State Commission of Haryana, calls for no interference. We were informed by the Counsel for the respondent/complainant that the allotment letter has been issued and possession of the plot has been handed over to the complainant. We make it clear that the allotment so made by H U.D.A. to the complainant would be subject to any order that may be passed by the Supreme Court in the matters pending before it.