SHANTI DAHIYA vs HUDA

Counsel for the petitioner heard. None appeared for the respondent/ HUDA. Mr. Vipin Jai, was the previous counsel for the respondent/HUDA. He could not appear because he was no more in the panel of HUDA, vide order dated 20.10.2015. Fresh notice was served upon HUDA, but none has appeared on behalf of HUDA, despite service.

This Execution Revision Petition has got a chequered history. Smt. Shanti Dahiya, the complainant, was allotted a residential plot No. 1989, Sector-23, Sonepat, Haryana, on 22.08.1991. This is an indisputable fact that the complainant is a defaulter. The complainant requested the OP/HUDA to accept the third installment, without interest, but the OP was bent upon to charge the interest on delayed payment. The OP resumed the said plot. The District Forum, passed the following order :- "In the interest of justice, direct complainant to make the payment, whatever, in three monthly installments, w.e.f. Feb-1998 and the first monthly installment is to be paid on upto 7 th of every month, i.e., 7 th Feb-''98, 7 th -Mar-''98 and 7 th Apr-''98. The respondent is directed for the compliance of the order, to prepare the statement of account and intimate the total remaining amount of installments, whatever, but, without interest to the complainant, so that he might be able to deposit the same around upto 7 th Feb-''98".

The above said order was passed on 21.01.1998.

Aggrieved by that order, HUDA preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and passed the following order :- " The Commission has considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and has also perused the impugned order. From the record, it is observed that there is no stipulation in the allotment letter that if HUDA fails to deliver the possession of the plot within the stipulated period. HUDA would not charge the interest on the remaining installments. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had not paid the installments. Under the circumstances there was no option for HUDA but to resume the plot in question. The District Forum has observed that the complainant had agreed to make the payment of remaining amount without interest in three installments and prayed for mercy on interest point. The commission is of the considered view that in financial matter, principle of mercy cannot be applicable and one has to make payment as per settled terms and conditions. It is the well settled preposition of law that while disposing of the case. Justice has to be done in accordance with law. Since the complainant has failed to make payment, he was defaulter and can escape from his liability to make the payment with interest. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is quashed and complaint is dismissed. However, in case the complaint makes the payment of plot with interest and if the plot is still lying vacant, the same may be allotted to the complainant".

The above said order was passed on 25.07.2000.

In the meantime, the complainant filed Execution Petition before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the Execution Petition and made the following observations :- " Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the Plot No. 1989, Sector-23, Sonepat, has already been resumed after following an appropriate proceeding against which the complainant also filed an appeal against the Administrator, HUDA, there, the appeal of the complainant was dismissed.

The possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant as the plot has already been resumed".

The State Commission, vide its order dated 16.01.2013, dismissed the revision petition. It pointed out that the plot has already been resumed, therefore, the Execution Petition does not lie.

We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the file is missing, as is apparent, as per letters dated 27.02.2006 and 09.07.2008, issued by Estate Officer, HUDA and Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. The HUDA also lodged FIR against the record keeper regarding the misplacement of the file. HUDA also wrote a letter to the complainant on 08.05.2006, requesting her to file all the papers of the plot so that further action to recast the duplicate file can be taken by the office of the HUDA.

The argument urged by the counsel for the petitioner/ complainant has two prongs. Firstly, it was submitted that the file could not be traced out and secondly, the petitioner/complainant has been suffering from cancer and was operated upon in the Month of March, 2013 and that her breasts were removed at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute before the treatment of cancer.

It may be mentioned here that there is a delay of 285 days in filing this Execution Revision Petition. Although, cancer of breast is not a very serious disease, yet, in the interest of justice, we condone the said delay in filing the Execution Revision Petition.

Secondly, the counsel for the petitioner states that the plot has not been resumed, but the file does not show so. The order was passed by the State Commission, as back as, in the year 2000. The complainant waited, till six years, and did not pay the installments, with interest. She waddled out of the commitment and thus is not entitled for any relief. The Execution Revision Petition is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, nothing will debar the complainant to move before the HUDA authorities again and make a request to re-allot the said plot to her, if it has not been resumed and she will pay the entire remaining installments, with penal interest. If the complainant so approaches the HUDA, it is expected that the HUDA authorities will sympathetically decide her case, as per law.

Before parting with, it may be mentioned here that the absence of HUDA, in such like cases, go to delay the case, unnecessarily. The HUDA should have appeared before this Commission and argued the case. In its absence, a clear picture does not emerge. For example, the counsel for the petitioner/ complainant stressed at Bar that the plot has not been resumed. All the records before the fora below, show that the same has been resumed, yet, for proper adjudication, the presence of HUDA was necessary. It is the Government which is interested in delaying the cases, time and again. In case, the Government desires, it can minimize the delays and the pending cases before the Courts, in this country.