H.U.D.A. Vs. SMT. SARLA

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-11, 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 she 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 H.U.D.A. that in lieu of plot No. 1450 in Sector 11-12, Phase-11, Urban Estate, Panipat, Plot No. 576-D 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.) Mr. Bana has filed an affidavit of the Estate Officer, H.U.D.A., Panipat wherein it is stated that the plot specified by the Complainant and which had been directed to be allotted to the Complainant was a plot which had been allotted under the category of discretionary quota and the allotment of the plot has been cancelled by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5851 of 1996 titled Anil Sabharwal Vs. State of Haryana and affirmed by the Supreme Court. It is further mentioned that 60 allottees comprising of 58 re-transferees of such discretionary quota plots and two original allottees have approached the Supreme against the cancellation of their plots and their writ petitions have been admitted and Supreme Court has granted stay in respect of those plots. In those Writ Petitions the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in the case of Anil Sabharwal Vs. State of Haryana has also been challenged. However, so far as the plot No. 576-D in Sector 11-12, Part-II, which has been directed to be allotted to the Complainant by the District Forum is concerned, there is no stay in respect of the said plot from any Court.