HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SNEH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sneh Gupta instituted a complaint in the District Forum-I, Chandigarh that Haryana Urban Development Authority was not justified to withhold event the first instalment of Rs.18,000/- out of Rs.90,190/- deposited by her for allotment and possession of plot No.117 measuring 209 sq. metres in Sector 23, Sonepat. The main reason was that possession of the aforesaid plot was not delivered to her for a period of 5 years. The District Forum-I ordered refund of Rs.18,000/- together with interest @ 10% p. a. on 28.1.1999 and aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

(2.) The main plea put forward by the appellant is that the complainant should have gone to the District Forum, Sonepat where the plot was located or to the Forum at Panchkula alleging that the office of HUDA is situated at Panchkula.

(3.) The respondent has drawn our attention to notification dated 13.1.1977 issued by the Haryana Government and it is reproduced as Under : "no. S. S.5 H. O. /1/77 S.3/77-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (1) of Sec.3 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Ordinance, 1977, and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Haryana hereby establishes an Authority to be known as the Haryana Development Authority with headquarters at Chandigarh with effect from the date of publication of this notification in Official Gazette. A. Banerjee commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana town and Country Planning Department. " A perusal of this notification shows that the headquarters of HUDA are situated at Chandigarh. Nothing has been brought to our notice about the withdrawal of supersession of this notification. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be said that the complaint instituted by Sneh Gupta on 15.9.1997 at Chandigarh was bad for want of territorial jurisdiction. A half-hearted plea raised on behalf of the appellant that interest @ 10% p. a. may be waived, has no merit at all. The impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs Rs.300/-.