1. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.ESTSTE OFFICER , BHSDUTHSRH HARLYANA -
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 29 Sep 2010
ORDER
The facts, in very brief are that the Revision Petitioner/Complainant, Deepak Kumar Goswami had been provisionally allotted on 22.10.1992, an industrial plot for manufacture of paints and varnish by the Respondent/ Objecting Party. The letter of provisional allotment contained five conditions that were to be fulfilled within a period of nine months. On 14.11.1994 HUDA cancelled the provisional allotment for failure to produce documentary evidence of fulfillment of four out of five conditions. His appeal against this cancellation, was rejected by Administrator, HUDA on 20.12.1996. It was on the ground that even with time extension of three months, he had failed to fulfill the formalities. The present Revision Petition is moved against the concurrent findings of the District Consumer Forum, Jhajjar and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. Both fora have held that the conditions of provisional allotment had not been fulfilled even during the extended period. We have perused the records and heard the counsels for the two parties. The District Forum has observed that the complainant, having received the refund of his deposit, had no right to claim any other relief. The State commission, in the appeal filed by the Complainant, went into the five conditions of the provisional allotment order of HUDA and held that the letter of Haryana Financial Corporation relied upon by the appellant only showed that a loan had been applied for and not that the loan had been sanctioned. Hence the Commission concluded that this condition was not complied. The RP has questioned this conclusion on the ground that the letter of 17.11.1993 had conveyed the sanction of loan. However, his Appeal Memo before the State Commission had merely mentioned it as letter dated 19.10.1993 of the Haryana Financial Corporation with regard to the loan application. It does not show it as the letter of sanction dated 17.11.1993, as claimed now. Even if such a letter of sanction did exist, it would be subsequent to the date on which the extended time limit had ended. In any case, the letter of sanction of loan, produced as Annexure P-4 to the Revision Petition, is a letter of 14.12.1993, which cannot be used to question the impugned order. In the revision petition before us, the RP has used a tenuous logic to assail the condition No. 5 in the Provisional Letter of Allotment, requiring him to apply to HSEB for release of an electric connection to the unit. He has questioned its correctness on the ground that there was no similar condition mentioned in the brochure inviting applications for allotment. We do not see how a condition, specifically contemplated in the Provisional Letter of Allotment can be negated by its non-mention in the brochure inviting applications for allotment. If any of the five conditions were considered unacceptable to him, the proper course would have been to seek its deletion, soon after he received the Provisional Letter of Allotment. He cannot have the option to wait till the end of the extended time limit and then make it a ground to question cancellation of the provisional allotment. For the reasons discussed above, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
