H U D A vs JOGINDER SINGH

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.

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. 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 v. 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 Court 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 v. State of Haryana, has also been challenged. However, so far as the plot No. 304 -B 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.

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.

MR . Bana further submitted that the order of the District Forum imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/ - for each day of default was unwarranted and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this aspect. We find merit in his contention. There was no justification for imposing such a penalty by the District Forum and the State Commission wrongly affirmed it. As a result/ the Revision Petition is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum so far it directs for payment of Rs. 500/ - as costs/penalty for each day of default and affirmed by the State Commission is set aside. Rest of the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission is upheld. The Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms with no orders as to costs. Revision Petitions disposed of.