HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MEERA DATA

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum.

THE facts in brief which lead the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under : Complainant No. 1, Smt. Meera Data was a re-allottee of a residential plot in Rewari, Haryana. She had applied for permission to transfer the same to complainant No. 2, Satish Yadav. As per the policy of the HUDA, a property can be transferred for four times on payment of the requisite fee and complying with certain conditions. She was granted permission on 20.1.2000 and she complied with all the conditions. Vide Memo No. 752 dated 24.3.2000 HUDA withdrew the permission, which had resulted in the complainant''s approaching the District Forum for a direction to the HUDA to transfer the plot in question in the name of the complainant No. 2, The opposite party had admitted the fact of the permission that was granted and also that the instalment schedule has already been completed and hence the complainant could sell the plot after execution of conveyance deed. The District Forum after having heard both the parties and relying upon the decisions of the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, reported as 2000 (4) PCR (Civil) at 703, wherein it is held that revised policy restricting the right to transfer only after making full payment of consideration of instalments, will not apply with retrospective effect in view of the above finding, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to transfer the plot in favour of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order.

Feeling not satisfied, the opposite party went in appeal, where the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. Now, the opposite party is the petitioner before us.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. WE have also gone through the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission and the finding reached by them in view of the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It is a concurrent finding of fact, which requires no interference by this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed. _____________________