HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs BISHAN DASS

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 7.9.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 369 of 2007 - HUDA v. Bishan Dass, by which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order passed by District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased Plot No. 146 -B Block, Nai Mandi, Sirsa from Joginder Singh vide sale deed dated 14.3.1967, Petitioner/OP resumed the plot -vide memo dated 3.1.1998 on account of non -payment of the due amount towards the plot. Before resumption, notice was issued to the previous allottee Joginder Singh and not to the complainant; thereafter the complainant received notice on 13.1.2003 from the OP whereby complainant was directed to appear in opposite party''s office on 16.1.2003 to explain the position. Complainant appeared before OP and submitted that he never received resumption order and further prayed to restore the plot. As plot was not restored, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested the matter and submitted that complainant did not inform opposite party with respect to purchase of plot from previous allottee Joginder Singh; so, notice of resumption was issued in the name of Joginder Singh and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and granted following relief: ....We quash the resumption order No. 1722 dated 3.6.1998 and eviction memo No. 117/315 dated 6.1.2003/13.1.2003. The proceedings initiated by the respondent -HUDA qua the plot in question is hopelessly time -barred. So, we direct the respondent not to initiate the eviction resumption proceedings against the complainant in future. We further direct the respondent to implement the present order and to withdraw the impugned memos within a period of one month failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 7500 on account of physical and mental harassment, pain and agony, inconvenience, hardship, etc with costs of proceedings to the tune of Rs. 2500. At this stage the demand of compensation and costs of proceedings declined because the aforesaid relief granted by us to the complainant is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly.

PETITIONER filed appeal against the order of District Forum which was dismissed by impugned order; hence, this revision petition was filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal as complainant failed to intimate the petitioner about purchase of plot and notice for resumption was rightly issued to the original allottee; hence, petition be admitted.

APPARENTLY , resumption notice was issued after 31 years of allotment on the ground of non -payment of some amount. Learned State Commission has observed in impugned order that petitioner had recovered entire price of the plot from the original allottee Joginder Singh before sale deed was executed by Joginder Singh in favour of complainant. Thus, it appears that no dues were outstanding against the original allottee and in such circumstances, resumption order on the count of some dues should not have been made by OP/petitioner. Resumption order has been made after 31 years and learned District Forum has rightly observed that proceedings initiated by OP are hopelessly time -barred and has rightly quashed resumption order. As the complainant was residing in this plot for a long period, it was obligatory on the part of OP to serve notice of resumption on complainant and without serving notice on complainant, resumption order should not have been passed by OP.

WE do not find any infirmity, illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.