HUDA vs NEELAM JINDAL

-THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 1. 6. 2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula whereby while accepting the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1-complainant following directions have been issued to the appellant-opposite parties : "in the result, the instant complaint is hereby allowed and the O. Ps. are hereby directed: (a) To allot ten Marlas plot in Sector 21, Part III, Panchkula to the complainant on the same price and on the same terms and conditions which prevailed at the time of floating the scheme in question. (b) Also to pay Rs. 1,000 as costs of proceedings. Let the order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. "

THE facts set out in the complaint need to be noticed briefly in order to focus the controversy involved in the present appeal. The land of the complainant situated in village Chowki Tehsil and District Panchkula was acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Notification dated 26. 3. 1999 for the purpose of recreational zone. In September 2003, the opposite parties advertised for the draw of plots in several sectors including Sector 21, Phase III, Panchkula. The complainant submitted an application for the allotment of 10 Marlas plot located in Sector 21, Part III and also deposited Rs. 89,996 along with the application with the opposite parties. He also submitted the entire revenue record in respect of his eligibility for the allotment of the plot under the oustees policy. The opposite parties rejected his claim without giving any reasons and intimation. The complainant approached the opposite parties to disclose the basis on which his application had been declined and came to know that the opposite parties had considered his case in general category instead of oustees category in terms of the policy dated 28. 7. 1998 because under the policy the claimants whose land had been acquired for recreational purposes were entitled to plots under the oustees quota as per their entitlement. The complainant also made written representation dated 10. 3. 2000 to the opposite parties in this regard but no action was taken. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that the complainant was not entitled to allotment of 10 Marlas plot in Sector 21, Part III, Panchkula under the oustees category because the land of the complainant was acquired by the opposite party No. 3 -respondent No. 3 situated in village Chowki which falls in Sector 31 of Panchkula Extension. It was further stated that the opposite parties intend to carve out 350 plots of different size in Sector 31, Panchkula Extension in near future and the complainant could apply in that sector as and when application for oustees would be invited. The other plea of locus standi; want of jurisdiction to try the complaint; non-maintainability of the complaint in the present form and there being no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties were also raised. Consequently, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. After examining the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum rejected the stand of the opposite parties and issued directions in its order dated 1. 6. 2006 noticed above. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Learned Counsel representing the appellants have been heard at length.

The stand of the complainant that his land situated in village Chowki, Tehsil and District Panchkula was acquired as per Notification dated 23. 6. 1999 issued by the opposite party No. 3 had not been disputed in the written statement filed by the opposite parties. Rather, the opposite parties in the written statement filed admitted the entitlement/eligibility of the complainant for the allotment of the plot under the oustees category. Therefore, the primary objection was that he was not entitled to 10 Marlas of plot in Sector 21, Part III, Panchkula under the oustees category because the acquired land of the complainant was located in the village which falls in Sector 31, of Panchkula Extension and he would be at liberty to apply for the allotment of the plot as they were planning to carve out 350 plots of different size in Sector 31, Panchkula Extension in near future and his application would be invited. This objection of the opposite parties has been rightly rejected by the District Forum on the ground because the land of the complainant was acquired by the opposite parties for Sector 31 for the development and utilization of land as recreational and public and semi-public purposes and not for residential purposes. The opposite parties had issued the policy vide Memo No. A-11p-98/24402-22 dated 28. 8. 1998 wherein it is specifically stated that "after careful consideration, the Authority in the 74th meeting held on 28. 8. 1998, vide agenda item No. A-74 (7) in partial modification of the policy on the subject in force have decided that if the plot under the oustees policy cannot be offered to the oustees in the same sector then they should be offered residential/commercial plots in the next residential sector of that Urban Estate which may be floated and developed by HUDA. This amendment/provisions will be made applicable prospectively. " Even in terms of the above policy the opposite parties were not justified in rejecting the application of the complainant seeking allotment of the plot in oustees category in Sector 21, Part III, Panchkula for which he had made the requisite deposit along with the application submitted. Under the circumstances of the case, the basis of rejection of the application of the complainant treating the same under the general category was totally unjustified.

LEARNED Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties has also contended that the order passed by the District Forum is in violation of Sub-rule 9 of Rule 4 of the Statutory Rules known as "haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004" (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2004) because it has not been signed and dated as per requirements laid down therein. Reliance was placed in respect of the stand taken on the case, Housing Board Haryana v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and Ors. , III (1995) CPJ 28 (SC)=i (1996) CLT 108 (SC)=air 1996 SC 92. The controversy raised in the above mentioned case was entirely different because the principal dispute related to the period of limitation which is not so in the present case. In this case, there is no delay in filing the appeal at all. The impugned order of the District Forum clearly shows that the President has appended the date below his signature while the Member had not mentioned the date under her signature. At the same time date of the order has been mentioned after the word ''announcement'' on the left side of the page of the order. Thus, it cannot be said that the compliance of the above stated rules has not been done in this case and for that reason the submission made in this regard has to rejected. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite parties that the District Forum has not taken into consideration that the complainant had no exclusive right of allotment and no such plot could have been allotted to the complainant under the oustees quota. Reliance was placed by him on the case Ramanand v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1994 Del. 29 and Karnail Kaur v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Anr. , I (2005) CPJ 48 (NC)=2005 (1) CPC 259. None of the above cited cases help the opposite parties because of the admitted stand of the complainant with regard to his entitlement for the allotment of the plot under the oustees category as per his eligibility under the policy framed noticed above.

IN this case in the memorandum of appeal filed a plea with regard to limitation has also been raised on the basis of position of law explained in Sukhwinder Singh v. The Land Acquisition Collector and Anr. , I (2001) CPJ 35=2001 (1) CPC 85, but the facts of the present case clearly spell out that the opposite parties had rejected the application as per list displayed by the opposite parties on 19. 3. 2004 while the present complaint came to be filed on 19. 12. 2005. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is manifestly within limitation. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. The amount of Rs. 5,000 deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules. Appeal dismissed.