Om Prakash , PRITHI RAJ vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE facts of the above said revision petition are these. The land of the petitionerS/complainantS was acquired on 7.8.1984 for setting up Urban Estate Sector 9, Karnal. As per the ''oustees scheme'' for allotment of plots, the complainants submitted two applications, one by each of the complainants but the Haryana Urban Development Authority-opposite party refused to consider their applications. The reason given by them was that they had not deposited 10% earnest money alongwith their applications.

CONSEQUENTLY, both the complainants filed complaint before the District Forum, Karnal. Their main allegation was that there was deficiency in service on the part of HUDA-opposite party. The District Forum accepted their complaint and held that the complainants were eligible for the allotment of plots under the ''oustees quota'' and directed the HUDA to allot plot No. 367 and 429 in Sector 8/9 to the complainants.

HARYANA Urban Development Authority preferred an appeal before the State Commission which accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the order passed by the State Commission is not in accordance with law. The petitioners whose land was acquired were legally entitled for allotment of plots as per the policy of HUDA and recommendation of the Estate Officer, HUDA Karnal. The petitioners were never asked to pay 10% of the earnest money. The State Commission has not applied correct judicial principle while deciding the matter in question.

WE clap no value with all these arguments. The judgment passed by the State Commission is flawless. The learned State Commission has placed reliance on Ram Mehar and Anr. Vs. Vice-Chairman, D.D.A. and Ors. III (1992) CPJ 59 (NC). In this authority it was held as under:- "The case of the Complainants is that under a Scheme for providing alternate sites to persons from whom land were acquired, they are entitled to get alternate sites. Even if that be so we fail to see how the Complainants can be said to be consumers, since the scheme does not operate to create any relationship in the nature of hiring of service for consideration as between the Complainants and the D.D.A."

SIMILAR view was taken in Delhi Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal Batra and Anr. I(1997) CPJ 43 (NC). The learned trial court has also referred to civil writ petition No. 6554 of 1997 decided on 5.5.1998 titled as "Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Smt. Raj Dhulhari" reported in 1998 (2) P.L.R. 756 wherein the Division Bench of Hon''ble Mr. Justice G. S. Singhvi and Hon''ble Mr. Justice V.S. Aggarwal took the same view.

THE State Commission also referred to Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 1979 P.L.R. 413, wherein a full bench decision held that by filing of an application in accordance with law, the applicant only gets a right of consideration of his application but he does not get a vested right for allotment of plot. Similar view was taken in Prem Kanta and others vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and another in revision petition No. 3326 of 2003 wherein it was held that the petitioners are not the consumers.

THE revision petition is devoid of force and therefore, the same is dismissed.