HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Tej Refrigeration Industries

THE facts germane to this revision petition are these. THE petitioner, Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ''HUDA ''), allotted the Industrial Estate Plot No.115, Phase-I, Bahadurgarh, in favour of complainant, Tej Refrigeration Industries, on 08.02.1978. THE possession of the plot was also handed over to the complainant in the year 1981. THE complainant was supposed to construct the premises within the stipulated period. THE complainant had deposited the full and final cost of the plot before 1983 and got executed the Conveyance Deed on 23.03.1983, in his favour. THE complainant could not carry on the construction work because of non-development of area.

THE petitioner, HUDA, resumed the plot in the year 1995-1998, due to non-construction of the building within the stipulated period vide order dated 11.07.1995 and the amount deposited by the complainant stood forfeited without giving any notice. Consequently, the complainant filed the present revision petition. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the HUDA to give physical possession of the alleged plot to the complainant, and if the said plot is not available, then some alternative plot of same size and standard, be given to the complainant, in the same sector, within one month.

In appeal, preferred by HUDA, the State Commission dismissed the same.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this complaint is barred by time. HUDA had developed the entire area. We see no merit in these arguments. The report of the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, regarding the development work, placed before the District Forum, clearly, specifically and unequivocally says that the area was fully developed in the year 1998-99. The plot was resumed before the completion of the full development of the area. In the revision petition, under the heading of ''Dates '', it is stated that the petitioner resumed the plot due to non-construction of the plot, within the prescribed period, vide order dated 11.07.1995, but before the learned State Commission, it was submitted that the area was resumed on 16.10.1998. Whatever the case may be, since the plot was not given to the petitioner and his money was also not returned, therefore, the cause of action continued. It is clear that the development work stood completed in the year 1998-99. Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute this fact. The plot in question was resumed earlier to that, even before providing the basic amenities.

UNDER the circumstances, the orders passed by the fora below cannot be faulted. We affirm the order passed by the State Commission and dismiss the revision petition.