HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Asha Kaur

THE facts of the revision petition are these. Respondent/complainant, Smt. Asha Kaur was allotted a plot by Haryana Urban Development Authority (to be referred as HUDA, now onwards), bearing No. 841, situated in Bhiwani, Sector-23, HUDA,vide allotment letter dated 27.8.1991. The Complainant deposited the entire price of the said plot. HUDA could not deliver the actual possession of the plot to Smt. Asha Kaur, due to stay granted by the District Forum, with respect to the said plot. Consequently, HUDA allotted alternative plot to her bearing No. 936 in the same Sector, on the basis of draw, held on 28.11.2002. The case of the complainant was that due to delay in delivery of the possession of alternative plot, she suffered financial loss as she could not raise construction of her house. She prayed for giving her the adequate compensation as well as interest on the deposited amount.

THE District Forum found that there was delay for a period of 12 years. It directed the petitioner HUDA to pay interest @ 12% on the deposited amount to the complainant till the date of delivery of possession, i.e. on 27 5.2003 and to pay litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 2,200. The State Commission, on appeal preferred by HUDA, the petitioner, dismissed it.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this revision petition. He vehemently argued that both the Fora below did not apply their mind and passed short, cryptic and non-reasoned orders. It was contended that the dispute raised by the complainant is manifestly outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Fora below did not take consideration of the fact that HUDA allotted alternative plot and offered the possession of the alternative plot to the complainant as the initial plot allotted to the respondent was under litigation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that under the circumstances, the petitioners are not liable to pay the above said interest.

WE find it extremely difficult to countenance this contention. It is true that the plot was under litigation, therefore, it should not have been allotted to the complainant. The respondent paid the entire price of the plot and suffered due to non-delivery of possession for a period of 12 years, for no fault of hers. No amount of rhetoric can change the reality. Why should anyone take a dallop of injustice from someone else because it enjoys authority. Lastly, there is delay of 30 days in filing the present revision. The reasons assigned in the application are that it has occurred due to usual procedural delay, which are of routine nature, usually taken by any Government Department. No other ground or sufficient cause has been taken in the application. No argument was urged before us by the Counsel for the petitioner. Subsequently, it came to our notice at the time of dictation of judgment. A perusal of the application does not establish sufficient cause. Consequently, the same is dismissed.

THUS the revision petition is dismissed in limine. Revision Petition dismissed.