HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs R.P.Chawla

THIS order shall dispose of two Appeal Nos. 8 of 1996 and 34 of 1996 filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority against the same order dated 17th November, 1995 passed by learned District Forum, Ambala, whereby the complaint of Mr. R.P. Chawla has been allowed. The second appeal is only to cover inadvertent omission while filing the appeal. However, it may be noted that even though both the appeals are barred by limitation, yet the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. Despite that the appeals are being disposed of on merits.

COMPLAINANT''s father was allotted a plot measuring 8 marlas bearing No. 26-38 in Sector 22-23-A, Gurgaon, which plot has since been transferred in favour of complainant-R.P. Chawla by the Estate Officer, HUDA vide letter dated 13th June, 1995. Even though the father of the complainant had paid the entire amount by way of regular instalments, yet the possession was not given to him for considerably long period as plot was said to be in possession of Usha Sted Farm. On the other hand, HUDA made another demand of Rs. 60,370/by way of enhancement and the interest accrued thereon. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance. In reply, though HUDA admitted the factual position, yet pleaded that physical possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant due to litigation, which litigation was still pending. It was in view of this position that the learned District Forum has allowed the complaint by issuing the following directions : "(i) To allot the complainant a plot measuring 8 marlas in Sector 22-23-A at Gurgaon or in any other comparable developed sector on the price already paid by him. (ii) To pay interest on the amount of Rs. 40,480/@ 18% per annum w.e.f. 1.8.1992 till its payment. (iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 200 /as costs of proceedings of complaint."

In the appeals before us, learned Counsel appearing for HUDA has vehemently contended that firstly the learned District Forum, Ambala did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the plot allotted to the complainant was situated at Gurgaon. The objection is without any merit as the office of the Chief Administrator, HUDA, which governs and controls the total administration of HUDA in the State of Haryana including the District of Gurgaon is situated at Panchkula, which is in the territorial jurisdiction of Ambala; hence the plea is rejected. On merits, it has been contended that due to pendency of litigation the development of the plot could not be undertaken and the question of allotting alternative plot to the complainant was under consideration and the necessary allotment shall be made as and when it is decided by the competent authority. The stand taken by the appellant-HUDA is wholly vague, noncommittal and without any meaning. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.