One Sh. Som Dev predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/complainant was allotted a plot measuring 135 sq.mtrs. by respondent – Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The allotment was made on 3.7.1990. The possession was delivered to the allottee on 2.4.2009. The plot was purchased by the petitioner from the original allottee on 24.6.2009. The grievance of the petitioner/complainant is that the area of the plot was less than 135 sq.mtrs. Aggrieved from the lesser area of the plot, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking compensation. The District Forum directed the respondent to pay the prevailing market price of 5 sq.mtr. of land since the actual area was less than the allotted area of the plot.

2.      Being aggrieved from the  order passed by the District Forum, the HUDA approached the concerned State Commission way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 11.8.2017, the State Commission noted that no objection with respect to the area had been raised and that even in the sale deed, the area mentioned was 135 sq.mtrs. The State Commission was of the view that the petitioner ought to have sought compensation from the seller, if the area of the plot was less than the area sold to him. It was noted by the State Commission that the actual area of the plot was 132.66 sq.mtrs. The Haryana Urban Development Authority was, therefore, directed to refund proportionate price of the deficient area of land to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before this Commission  by way of this revision petition.

3.      The only question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to market price of the land or he is entitled to refund at the allotment price of the land, for the deficient  area admeasuring about 2.34 sq.mtrs. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the actual area of the plot was 130 sq.mtrs., the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted in view of the report which clearly shows size of the plot is 7.37 x 18 = 132.66 sq.mtrs. The petitioner, therefore,  was entitled to refund of the price of area admeasuring only 2.34 sq.mtrs.

4.      In my view, the respondent cannot be directed to pay the market price of the deficient area to the complainant, it having received only the allotment price from her predecessor-in-interest. In fact if the area was less, the predecessor-in-interest of the complainant could have refused to take possession. Having accepted the possession of the plot admeasuring 132.66 sq.mtrs., she is precluded from seeking market value of the deficient area.

5.      In my opinion, the view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.