CHANDA AGGARWAL vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SMT. Chanda Aggarwal has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint alleging deficiency in service against HUDA and demanding adequate compensation for their failure in delivering possession of plot in dispute.

COMPLAINANT was allotted plot No. 6-P measuring 836 square metres for tentative price of Rs. l,85,000.15 on 31st May, 1986. The necessary payment by way of instalments was made by the complainant as stipulated in the letter of allotment dated 31st May, 1986. Despite the possession was not delivered to the complainant. On the other hand, a sum of Rs. 2,18,764.48 was demanded by HUDA by way of enhanced compensation. Aggrieved against that, the complainant approached the Civil Court for claiming injunction and the recovery of the enhanced compensation was stayed. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of HUDA, complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 14,55,800/- by way of compensation especially when development works have not been completed by HUDA even during the last more than 10 years after the plot was allotted to the complainant. In their written statement, HUDA pleaded that as the complainant had already approached the Civil Court in which identical questions are involved for the determination of the Court and the case was pending before the Additional District Judge, Hisar, the present complaint was not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that enhanced price of the plot was rightly demanded by HUDA as enhanced compensation had to be paid by them to the land owners, whose land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It is further pleaded that since the Hon''ble High Court had granted stay against HUDA, development in the area including the plot in dispute could not be made by HUDA.

During the course of arguments it transpired that due to lack of development facilities the plot in question could not be allotted by HUDA. Accordingly on 11th March, 1998 the following interim order was passed : "Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the opposite parties. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate for the complainant states that due to lack of development facility, plot could not be allotted by HUDA. As the plot No. 6-P in Sector 13-P, Hisar was not feasible, the alternate plot had to be allotted. It has been stated by the complainant that plots No. 1022 & 1023 in Sector 14 which are lying unallotted, may be allotted to the complainant, (copy of the application alongwith site plan has been handed over to the learned Counsel for the respondent - HUDA.) In order to enable HUDA to take the decision in matter, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar is directed to file an affidavit by the next date of hearing. In case HUDA authorities decide to accommodate, the complainant undertakes to forego all their claims regarding costs and interest etc. Copy of this order shall be given dasti to the learned Counsel for the parties. Adjourned to 31st March, 1998."

THEREAFTER, the case remained adjourned but the parties have not intimated as to whether the alternative allotment has been made or not. Now it has been brought to our notice, that out of the two plots as mentioned above, plot No. 1023 has already been allotted by HUDA to some other person and plot No. 1022 still remains unallotted. Accordingly we allow this complaint and direct HUDA to allot plot No. 1022 to the complainant on the same terms and conditions and on the same rate as prevailing at the time of original allotment, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. This direction has been issued in accordance with the principle already settled by the Hon''ble National Commission and Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana i.e. alternative allotment is always by way of exchange in lieu of the plot originally allotted and for that reason HUDA is entitled to demand price for the alternative plot at the same rate at which the original plot was allotted. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Complaint allowed.