RAM NIWAS MANAV LECTURER-/ vs HUDA-/

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Hisar declining to entertain the complaint preferred by the appellant.

THE complainant had averred that he was the holder of plot number 706 measuring 100 Sq. meters in Sector 13 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority complex at Hisar. It was the case that the possession was duly delivered to him on the 7th of March, 1991 and thereafter he had submitted a site-plan for the construction of a house therein alongwith a ''No Due Certificate'' for approval. However, this was returned back on the 12th of June, 1991 for want of "standard zoning of plots". THEreafter the said plans were re-submitted but were returned again on the old ground and it was not till the 24th of October, 1991 these were finally sanctioned. It was further the case that the complainant had applied for the execution of a conveyance deed and deposited non-judicial stamp paper worth rupees 2,093/- but these were also returned on the 6th of February, 1992 by the respondent on the ground that the enhanced cost of Rs. 21,196.68 paise should be deposited as a condition precedent to execute the aforementioned deed. Allegations of unfair discrimination and mala fides were levelled against the respondent and a compensation to the tune of Rs. One lac was claimed.

On notice being issued the respondents HUDA took up the plea that the appellant had not submitted the complete plan papers to them, and consequently the same could not be approved. Equally the necessity of the full payment of the enhanced cost before executing the conveyance deed was reiterated.

THE District Forum in its short order noticed that there was a dispute about the payment of Rs. 21,196.68 paise towards the enhanced price of this plot. Specifically it was recorded that the complainant-appellant had conceded before the District Forum that this dispute was already pending in the Civil Court. Patently finding that the matter was either wholly or partially sub-judice, the District Forum exercised its discretion of not entertaining the complaint on this ground. The appellant who projected his appeal in person with considerable persistence, first high- lighted the fact that he had not individually instituted a suit in the Civil Court himself. Consequently it was argued that the District Forum was not justified in non-suiting the appellant at the very threshold.

WE are unable to find much merit in the aforesaid submission despite the vehemence with which it has been pressed. The appellant very fairly conceded in the first instance that he was not the original owner of the plot allotted out by the HUDA. It was his own case that he had purchased the same in a subsequent re-sale. This would make it some- what doubtful whether the appellant would be a consumer in strictitude qua the respondent-HUDA. Apart from this, Mr. Ram Niwas admitted that there was a representative body styled as submission of the appellant must therefore, fail equally. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. We however, decline to burden, the appellant with any costs since no appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondents. Appeal dismissed.