Haryana Urban Development Authority And Anr. vs JITENDER NATH SHARMA

THIS case revolves around the question: "Whether the oustees, complainant or the other Co -sharers are entitled to a plot under the Oustees Policy - The petitioners/opposite parties acquired the land of Sh. Jitender Nath Sharma, the complainant and 39 other Co -sharers, on 9.10.2003. As per the Oustees Policy, Harayana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) invited applications for allotment of 1 (one) Kanal plot in Sector -6, MDC, Panchkula. Sh. Jitender Nath Sharma, the complainant, applied for the same and deposited the earnest money in the sum of Rs. 2,10,000 with the petitioners/opposite parties. HUDA allotted plot No. 18 -P in Sector 6, MDC, Panchkula, vide allotment letter, in favour of the complainant along with 69 other co -sharers, whereas, there are only 39 co -sharers in the acquired land. The other oustees did not apply for the allotment of plot. The complainant further deposited 15% of Rs. 36,78,500, on 31.1.2007. The complainant made an inquiry and the officials of HUDA replied that they cannot allot plot in the sole name of the complainant as per HUDA Policy unless and until No Objection affidavits were furnished by the remaining Co -sharers. Aggrieved by that decision, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to issue allotment letter dated 4.1.2007 in the sole name of the complainant in respect of the same plot after deleting the names of other co -sharers or in the alternative, allot any other plot as per his entitlement, according to the Policy of HUDA, in the same Sector or adjoining Sector at the same price and the same conditions. Liberty was granted to HUDA to recover the dues in respect of the plot in question, if any, from the complainant alone.

HUDA preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 1.8.2011. Thereafter, the present revision petition was filed. There is delay of 34 days in filing this revision petition. Counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the petitioner has failed to establish "sufficient ground" for condonation of delay. He alleged that it has taken lame excuse and the application should be dismissed. We have perused the application for condonation of delay in filing this revision petition. The delay is explained in para No. 2 of the said application, which is reproduced as under: That after receipt of the copy of the impugned order from the Counsel of the petitioner, the same was analysed by the petitioner in view of the financial implications and policy issues involved therein. Considering the importance of the matter, it was thereafter decided by the petitioner that revision petition may be filed challenging the orders passed by the Forums below. Hence, necessary approvals were taken for filing the said revision petition. The Governmental procedures in respect of seeking sanctions, collecting relevant documents from concerned departments and preparing and filing the present revision petition has resulted in unavoidable delay of 34 days, which is unintentional, unavoidable and highly regretted.

IN the said application reference was also made to the authorities, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, : II (2005) CCR 47 (SC) : III (2005) SLT 455 : (2005) 3 SCC 752, Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Major Daljit Singh & Ors., : 1987 Supp SCC 685. Counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards the affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, wherein an effort has been made to explain the day -to -day delay.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that it is only administrative and procedural delay and the petitioners do not deserve any leniency from this Commission. There is delay of 34 days only. This cannot be said to be ''inordinate delay''. The procedural and administrative steps take some time. Even if there is some negligence on the part of the petitioners, the same can be met by payment of costs. Last but not the least, we also see some merit in the case of the respondent The application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000 with Prime Minister Relief Fund, towards Uttarakhand Tragedy, within 90 days, otherwise, the application shall be deemed to have been dismissed along with the revision petition. The Registrar is directed to see the compliance of the order and shall submit the report, within 30 days'' thereafter.

NOW , we turn to the merits of the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that this case is different from the other cases. In this case, the allotment letter was issued and as such, the petitioner is to be considered as a "consumer". He has also invited our attention towards allotment letter dated 18.3.1992, wherein, para III of the said letter reads as under: III. The above policy shall also apply in case there are a number of co -sharers of the land which has been acquired. If the acquired land measures more than one acre. Then, for the purpose of granting benefits under this policy, the determining factor should the area owned by each co -sharer, respectively, as per his/her share in the joint -holding. In case the acquired land of the co -sharer is less than one acre, only one plot of 250 sq. yd., would be allotted in the joint name of the co -sharers.

HOWEVER , Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the said Policy has been amended and has invited our attention towards letter dated 12.3.1993, the relevant para of which reads as follows: I am directed to address you on the subject cited above and to inform that pursuit to the review of the oustees policy by the Authority in its meeting held on 20.2.1992, revised instructions were circulated on the subject vide memo No. S -2 -92/2071, dated 18.3.1992. While the said policy laid the guidelines to determine the eligibility of claimant oustees for allotment of residential commercial sites, the procedure to examine such claims remained open -ended.

All the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the respondent are bereft of merit. As a matter of fact, the case of oustees does not come within the domain of Consumer Fora. In a judgment of this Commission, titled HUDA v. Uday Singh, RP No. 3456 of 2009, it was held: Learned Counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on a decision of this Commission in the matter of Premkanta & Ors. v. HUDA & Anr., for unsuiting respondents, they being not consumers, as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. We can take notice of the fact that since owners of land had received compensation for land acquired by HUDA, allotment of residential plot under the Scheme was only a gesture of goodwill and there being no element of ''hiring'' service for consideration of petitioner authority from respondents. The ratio of decision of the case in Premkanta (supra), applies with all force with the case under consideration before us with identical factual backgrounds.

A Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal No. 10379/2010, titled Udai Singh v. HUDA & Anr., was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court against the above said order and the same was dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court, vide order dated 16.4.2010.

THIS Bench consisting of Justice J.M. Malik and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member, took the same view in Prem Singh v. Chief Administrator, HUDA, : III (2012) CPJ 320 (NC) and also followed the judgment of Premkanta & Ors. v. HUDA, : III (2008) CPJ 146 (NC). We also decided another case, titled as Om Prakash (deceased), Through L.Rs. v. HUDA & Ors., RP No. 2007 of 2011, decided on 3.9.2012, and took the same view, wherein a number of other authorities were also cited. It, therefore, appears that the District Forum as well as the State Commission arrogated to themselves those powers with which they were not armed with. The Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. An application has been moved by Co -sharers through Sh. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate. That application has become infructuous. We set aside the orders passed by the Fora below and dismiss the complaint. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the complainant is given liberty to file this case before the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances. He can seek help from Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, : II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : (1995) 3 SCC 583, on the point of limitation.