Haryana Urban Development Authority,Through Its Chief Administrator vs Satish Chander Sharma Accounts Officer

PETITIONERS Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) were the opposite parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short District Forum). They have filed this revision petition and seek to challenge therein order dated 13.12.2005 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh (for short State Commission). The State Commission by this order has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners HUDA against the order of the District Forum quashing their demand of Rs.1,46,826/- but has accepted their contention with regard to demand towards the cost of additional area of the plot but at the old rate and has modified the order of the District Forum to that extent.

AGGRIEVED, primarily on the quashing of their demand for additional amount of Rs.1,46,826/- towards the cost of the alternate plot at updated rate, that HUDA has filed this revision petition. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant was initially allotted plot No.211 measuring 138.6 sq.mtrs. @ Rs.8.8 per sq.mtrs. in Sector 13, Urban Estate, Panipat. He had paid a sum of Rs.1,45,680/- towards the cost of the said plot. Possession of the plot, however, could not be given to the complainant as it was under encroachment and litigation. The opposite parties HUDA, thereafter offered an alternative plot, the plot No. being 401 located in Sector 6, Urban Estate, Panipat in lieu of the original plot which was accepted by the respondent/complainant. While the size of the original plot was 138.6 sq.mtrs., the alternative plot allotted in Sector 6 measured 163.80 sq.mtrs. HUDA, thereafter, raised an additional demand of Rs.1,46,826/- towards the cost of the alternative plot in Sector 6 ; apparently, calculating the cost of the plot at a rate higher from the rate applied to the plot originally allotted. Further, HUDA asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.17,430/- for the additional 25.2 sq.mtrs. area of the plot.

Aggrieved upon the charging of the cost of alternate plot at a different/revised rate that the complainant approached the District Forum who while accepting the complaint, directed the petitioners HUDA to withdraw the additional demand of Rs.1,46,826/- and restrained them for allotting the plot to any other person. In the appeal that was filed before the State Commission by HUDA, the impugned order has been passed upholding the quashing of the demand for the revised cost of the plot but the State Commission has allowed the cost of the additional area at the old rate. Thus, the present revision petition by the aggrieved HUDA.

WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The short point for consideration is as to whether when the originally allotted plot was under encroachment and under litigation, for which the HUDA has offered an alternative plot ; the complainant can be asked to pay the cost of the alternate plot allotted in lieu thereof at a revised or prevailing rate of the new sector in which the alternative plot is offered ? The answer to this clearly would be in the negative. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent, in our view has rightly placed reliance in the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA Vs. Vijay Aggarwal (2005) 9 SCC 446 in which it has been held that Development Authority offering alternate plot due to impracticability of delivery of the original plot should give the alternate plot at the original price and not a higher price. It has also been brought to our notice that HUDA itself as per their Circular dated 10.12.2007 on the subject of exchange of plots, after considering the matter regarding charging of original rate of alternative plots if the plot is not available in the same sector have prescribed that if a plot is not available in the same sector than alternative plot may be given in the adjacent sector on the same rate, terms and conditions of the original plot. In this view of the matter, we need not dwell deeper into the matter as learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to our notice any specific undertaking that the complainant had agreed to accept the alternate plot at the revised rate/prevailing rate of Sector-6, Panipat or at a higher price than what he had been offered originally and have fully paid for.

UNDER the circumstances, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.