1. Delay condoned. 

 

2. By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the Chief Administrator, Haryana Sahari Vikas Pradhikaran/Opposite Party in the Complaint before the District Forum (for short “the HSVP”) question the correctness and legality of the Order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 373 of 2021. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the HSVP against the Order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 322 of 2021. The District Forum while allowing the Complaint filed by the Complainant has directed the HSVP to allot and give the physical possession of the Plot No. 316 of Sector 21 or Plot Nos. 277 or 278 of Sector 31 to the Complainant in lieu of the originally allotted Plot No. 87 of Sector 21 C III, Faridabad if lying vacant without litigation. The HSVP was also directed not to create a third party interest on the aforesaid plots and to further pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the respective dates of deposit till its realisation. 

 

3. Factually, the Complainant was allotted a Residential Plot No. 87 in Sector 21 – C III, Faridabad admeasuring a total area of 469.50 Sq. Mtrs by HSVP vide Allotment Memo No. 635 dated 2.03.196 for a tentative price ₹7,20,720/-. However, despite making the payment as per the demand made by the HSVP, they have failed to deliver the physical possession of allotted plot to the Complainant as promised. The Complainant sent various letters to the HSVP requesting possession of the Allotted Plot but the HSVP did not deliver the physical possession. The Complainant came to know that the Plot which was allotted to her was acquired under the Forest Area as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Complainant requested the HSVP either to allot the original Plot or exchange it with Plot No. 316 in Sector 21A or Plot Nos. 334 & 355 admeasuring 250 sq. Yards each in Sector 31, however, the said request was declined by the HSVP vide its letter dated 05.07.2021. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the HSVP to hand over the possession of Plot No.316, Sector 21A or Plot Nos. 334 & 335 in Sector, 31 Faridabad with compensation. 

 

4. Upon notice on Complaint, though the HSVP put in appearance before the District Forum but did not choose to file its Written Version despite numbers of opportunities having been granted for the said purpose by the District Forum. 

 

05. After due appreciation of the facts and the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that in terms of the exchange policy of the HUDA, the Complainant was entitled for an alternative plot in lieu of the originally allotted plot which was acquired under the “Forest Area” by an Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The District Forum held as under:-

 

“ In this case, consumer complaint filed by the complainant with the prayer for the alternative plot which was allotted by the opposite parties – HUDA in the year 1996 to Sujana Ram which was duly transferred in the name of Darshna- consumer complainant in question . As per the order of Ld. Supreme Court of India, the land of the opposite parties were reserved for Forest and the allotment of the allottees were cancelled on the basis of Ld. Supreme Court and lot of allottees got the alternative plots in lieu of the cancelled plots by Ltd. Supreme Court. Opposite parties – HUDA were directed to allot the alternate plot to the complainant and there are 100 of plots in the Forest Scheme and such type of other cases were decided by the Hon’ble High Court in case titled Satish Sethi Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others in CWP No.11572 of 2015 decided on 28.05.2015 passed by Justice Shri Ajay Kumar Mittal & Justice Ms. Rekha Mittal starting that.....  “We dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the representation dated 22.05.2013 (Annexure P-2) and the legal notice dated 19.01.2015 (Annexure P-3), respectively, in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity  of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order”  and other case titled Anshu Mehta Vs. HUDA & Ors. in CWP No.10576 of 2014 decided on 27.05.2014 passed by Justice Shri Surya Kant & Justice Lisa Gill Stating that.... “ We thus, dispose of this writ petition at this stage with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 &3 to treat the same as a representation on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the above-notice grievance and redress the same by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.”

 

In this case, a complaint was filed by the Complainant, Darshna  Sethi, wife of Shri Shyam Lal Sethi, resident of House No.224, Sector-15, Escorts Nagar, Sector 21A, Faridabad with a prayer to make the alternative allotment of Plot No. 316, Sector 21A, Faridabad or Plot No. 334 and 335, Sector 31, Faridabad measuring 250 sq. yards each in the name of the Complainant and deliver the possession of the said plots to the Complainant and the difference in the area of original plot and demanded plot may kindly be settled and if the amount is excess then to receive the excess amount and if the area is less than to release the said amount with interest in favour of the Complainant.  In lieu of the plot allotted earlier to the Complainant Plot No. 87/21, C-III on the same footing of plot allotted to the thousands of the allottee for Sector 21 i.e. Satish Sethi Vs. HUDA – CWP No. 11572 of 2015 decided on 28.05.2015, Anshu Mehta Vs. HUDA & Ors. – CWP No.100576 of 2014 ( O & M) decided on 27.05.2014,  Rajiv Soni Vs. HUDA in plot No. 354-355, Sector 31 in lieu of Plot No. 30, Sector 21D decided by the Ld. Hon’ble High Court.  In this case, the possession of the Plot was given to the Complainant but it was found to have been carved out in the notified “Forest Area”.  The Complainant’s Claim for the allotment of alternative plot was considered and he has been allotted Plot No. 87 in Sector 21-C III.  In this case, initially the plot was allotted to some Sujana Ram son of Vinja Ram, House No. 665, Sector 21A, Faridabad, XEN in Pollution Board earlier resident of H.No.266, Sector 9, Faridabad through his GPA Vijay Kumar son of Shri Dev Raj.  H. No. 543, Sector 15, Faridabad and it was transferred in the name of the Complainant with the permission No. 14010-10 dated 08.04.2004 and it was transferred Memo No. 16819 dated 05.05.2004 on 26.04.04 in the name of Smt. Darshana Devi wife of Shri Shyam Lal, resident of H.No. 224, Sector-15, Escorts Nagar, Faridabad.  As per the Ex.C-9 (Colly) all the payments were made through bank drafts (vide receipt 1 to X), Nothing was due against the Complainant qua the Plot No. 87, Sector 21 CIII.  Till date the amount is lying with opposite party i.e. HUDA.  After giving the several request letters and the legal notices as per mentioned in Ex. C1 to C7) Opposite Party never respond to it and during the course of arguments, counsel for the Opposite Parties was asked to bring the original file of the above mentioned case.  On 06.10.2021, Ms. Geeta, Dealing Hand of Opposite Party accepted before this Commission and make a statement that I will bring the file of Darshna Devi, owner of Plot No. 87, Sector 21C III on or before 13.10.2021 before this Commission.  On 13.10.2021, Ms. Geeta Devi, Dealing Hand appeared before this Commission and made a statement that I was bound to produce the original file of the Plot No. 87, Sector 21C, Part III, HUDA.  Above noted file is untraceable. In this regard, I am tendering this letter Memo No.11761 dated 12.10.21 duly signed by the Superintendent of Estate Officer HUDA.  During the course of arguments Complainant has prayed that plot No. 277 or 278 may be given to him in lieu of the Plot No. 87 of Sector 2C III. 

After going through the evidence led by the Complainant and the conduct of the opposite party, the Commission is of the opinion, the complaint is allowed with the direction to allot and give the physical possession to the Complainant of the Plot No. 316 of Sector 21 OR plot No. 277 or 278 of Sector 31 in lieu of the Plot No. 87 of Sector 21C III, if lying vacant without litigation. As per the exchange policy of the HUDA vide Memo No. 9579/EO dated 22.09.15, the Complainants are entitled for an alternative plot in lieu of the originally allotted plot which was in acquired by the order of Ld. Supreme Court stating that it was found to have been carved out in the notified “Forest Area”.  The Opposite Party is also directed not to create third party interest on the above noted plots and complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.5500/- as causing mental tension and agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the Complainant.  Opposite Party is also directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the respective date of deposits till its realisation.”

 

6. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid Order, Petitioners preferred First Appeal No. 373/2021 before the State Commission which was dismissed upholding the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission observed as under:-

 

“ This Commission is of the considered opinion that even if the Complainant is subsequent allottee of Plot No.87, Sector 21-C, III, Faridabad, she is being a senior citizen of the country have stepped into the shoes of the original allottee.  The Complainant had also deposited the amount as was directed from time to time by the good office of the Estate Officer, Faridabad.  It was incumbent for the officials of the Appellants that in the eventuality of passing an injunction order by the Hon’ble Apex Court of the land or due to the unavoidable circumstances, when it was not possible to deliver the physical possession of plot No. 87, Sector 21-C, III, Faridabad in that eventuality, the proper opportunity should have been afforded to the Complainant to offer an alternative plot.  It has also clear that there is large number of correspondence taken place between the parties with the office of Estate Officer, Faridabad but the just and genuine claim of the Complainant was not accepted.  It is quite pity that it is settled proposition of law even by the highest court of land and the Hon’ble National Commission that in case one particular plot has entered into a huge litigation or the physical possession due to certain  reasons cannot be delivered, in that eventuality an alternative plot can be allotted to a genuine allottee.

 

In the present case once the initial allotment was made in the year of 1996 and the present complainant is a subsequent allottee in the year of 2004 and she had been pushed to run from one pillar to other for a period of 18 years as nothing but is an abuse of process of law. It is definitely a case of deficiency and mal-trade practice on the part of the appellants.

 

It is not out of place to make a reference here that under the compelling circumstances, the complainant had to institute a consumer complaint titled as Darshna Sethi Vs. Haryana Sahari Vikas Pradhikaran Nigam and after having a large number of correspondence with the appellants, the compliant was allowed by the learned District Commission, Faridabad and even in the original consumer compliant, no written version or the written statement had been filed in spite of availing sufficient opportunities by the appellants to set up  the defence, but, the reasons are best known as to why the written version or the written statement did not file. In the constraint circumstances, the learned District Commission Faridabad has struck off the defence of the present appellants and as such, it is absolutely case of no evidence. There is nothing cogent or convincing documents available on the record which can refute the genuine claim of the complainant. The learned District Commission after due appreciation of the facts, circumstances, the documents placed on the record and the settled proposition of law in various celebrated authorities have issued direction to the appellants to provide the alternate plot to the complainant and there is absolutely no scope to intervene and to set aside the order passed by the learned District Commission. Even for the Senior Citizens every court or the organ of the states and the central agencies are very liberal for the upliftment of the senior citizens of the Country. The various schemes have been formulated for their welfare and since the complainant had been facing the great hardship for last more than 18 years, it is a case of abuse of powers at the hands of the officials or the offices of the appellants.

 

As a consequence thereof and with the above observation and discussion, this Commission has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants but have been found to be untenable without any force and merit and render no assistance. While concurring with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant complainant-respondent, the interim order passed by this Commission vide dated 23.12.2021, stands vacated with all intents and purposes and the appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.” 

 

07. Being aggrieved, the HSVP is before us by filing the present Revision Petition. 

 

8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the HSVP fervidly argued that admittedly the Complainant was a subsequent purchaser as she had purchased the Plot in question from one Sujana Ram in the year 2004 and at the time of transferring of the Plot she was well aware of the issue pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India regarding forest land.  He further submitted that as per the exchange policy of the HSVP, a subsequent purchaser is not entitled for an alternative plot in any circumstance. Moreover, as per the Rules and Regulations of HSVP  Policy as amended from time to time, the alternative plot is to be allotted to the original allottee by way of draw of lots and not by the choice of the Complainant. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA vs. Raje Ram – (2008) 17 SCC 407,  she also urged that claim of compensation on delay possession by a subsequent transferees is unsustainable. Learned Counsel scrupulously contended that the Plot in question was allotted to Sujana Ram in the year 1996 and it was transferred in the name of the Complainant in the 2004.  The Plot was under Supreme Court Order since 2004 and as such the Complaint filed by the Complainant in the year 2021 i.e. after about 17 years, is hopelessly barred by limitation. 9. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant supported the well-reasoned Orders passed by the Fora Below and submitted that there was glare deficiency in service on the part of the HSVP in not allotting an alternative plot for the 17 years to the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for an alternative plot with reasonable compensation and interest.

 

09. Having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the present Revision Petition is devoid of merit as none of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner holds water. 

 

10. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Plot No. 87, Sector 21C – III, Faridabad was allotted to one, Sujana Ram S/o Shri Vinjya Ram vide Memo No. 635 dated 12.03.1996 and the possession of the Plot was handed over to him on 17.02.2004.  The said plot was purchased from him by the Complainant in the year 2004 and she made a request to HSVP for transfer of the Plot in her name. She paid the entire consideration and the Plot in question was re-allotted in the name of the Complainant vide Memo No.16819 dated 05.05.2004. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a PIL passed the stay order in respect of Forest Area.  Since, the Plot in question was covered by the Forest Area the possession of the Plot could not be handed over to the Complainant by the HSVP. Subsequently, Complainant came to now that Plot No. 316 in Sector 21A and Plot Nos. 334 and 335 both admeasuring 250 sq. yards each in Sector 31 were lying vacant and accordingly, she requested the Petitioner HSVP to allot an alternative plot out of aforesaid plots to her in lieu of originally allotted plot but they did not pay any heed to her request. As rightly observed by the Fora below, numbers of time, the Complainant had approached the Petitioner and sent various letters to them for allotment of an alternative plot but they did not bother to redress the genuine grievance of the Complainant.  With regard to the preliminary objection of the Petitioner HSVP that the Complainant being a subsequent purchaser is not entitled for an alternative plot and they cannot enter into the shoe of the original allottee, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  “Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Charanjeet Singh” - 2021 SCC OnLine SC 479, has held that subsequent purchaser who takes over the obligation of the Original purchaser to pay the balance amount, would not per se excluded from the description of a Consumer and even in the absence of a privity of contract, a beneficiary of a Project/Service is a Consumer. Hence, the said contention has no leg to stand. Further, with regard to the contention of the HSVP that the complaint is barred by limitation, in catena of the judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission has held that in the cases where possession of the allotted plot/flat has not been handed over to the Complainant there is always a recurring cause of action. In number of cases, the HSVP has allotted the alternative plot to similarly situated allottees/purchasers without holding a draw of lot and it is surprising in the present case why the HSVP has not allotted an alternative plot to the Complainant in the Sectors requested by her in lieu of plot allotted in Sector 21 CIII, Faridabad which was acquired under the Forest Land. In my considered opinion, under these circumstances, the HSVP was duty bound to make an attempt for allotment of an alternative plot to the Complainant at their own instead of making the Complainant to run from pillar to post for the last 17 years. 

 

I fully agree with the view taken by the Fora below that the Complainant is entitled for an alternative plot in lieu of the plot originally allotted to her.  In view of the concurrent finding of the facts rendered by the Fora below that there was deficiency in service on the part of the HSVP, I do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission warranting interference u/s 21(b) of the Act.

11. Moreover, the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 decided on 21.01.2022] by observing as under:-

 

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

 

12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Impugned Order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the State Commission which is based on proper and correct appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced by the Parties. Consequently, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.