RADHA KRISHAN CHOUDHARY vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

PETITIONER/complainant had applied for 10 Marlas plot in Sector 8, Urban Estate, Ambala and deposited with the respondent/opposite party an amount of Rs. 33,943 by way of earnest money along with the application bearing registration No. 37821 dated 15.1.2000. Application was registered by the respondent for allotment of a plot in Sectors 4 and 5 at Karnal. Name of the petitioner was included in the draw of lots and he was successful in getting a plot of 10 Marlas bearing No. 448 located in Sector 5, Urban Estate, Karnal. On said mistake being detected, the allotment of plot was cancelled by the respondent authority. Aggrieved by that cancellation, the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by filing written version by the respondent. It was alleged that due to computer mistake the name of the petitioner was put in the draw of lots at Karnal. So, allotment of plot at Karnal was cancelled. It was further alleged that in the computer list the name of the petitioner was also included for the draw of lots for Ambala. Amount of Rs. 33,943 was refunded to the petitioner through a cheque dated 25.9.2000 by the Estate Officer, Ambala but the petitioner declined to accept that amount. The District Forum holding the respondent authority deficient in service in not considering the name for allotment of plot in Sector 8, Ambala ordered the respondent to pay certain amount of compensation and to refund the earnest money with interest. Dissatisfied with District Forum''s order both the parties filed appeals. Though the appeal of respondent authority was dismissed but the appeal preferred by the petitioner was accepted by enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 70,000 vide order dated 7.3.2007 by the State Commission. It is this order which is being challenged in present revision.

SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. Arvind Kumar Goel for petitioner whom I have heard on admission is that the cancellation of allotment of plot at Karnal by the respondent is bad in law and the petitioner is entitled to allotment of an alternate plot if the allotted plot at Karnal is not available now. In the alternative the petitioner is entitled to a plot at Ambala. It is admitted case of the parties that petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot in Sector 8, Urban Estate, Ambala. His name, thus, could not have been included in the draw of lots for a plot at Karnal. Stand taken by the respondent authority with regard to the name of the petitioner being included due to computer mistake for Karnal seems to be convincing. Action of the respondent authority in cancelling the allotment of plot at Karnal was, therefore, fully justified. It may be mentioned that the registration under a scheme floated by a public authority like the respondent only gives right to the registrant to be included in draw of lots and not the allotment of a plot. Petitioner, thus, cannot claim allotment of plot at Ambala. He has been adequately compensated by award of compensation of Rs. 70,000 for the computer mistake by the State Commission. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.