Haryana

Panchkula

EA/13/2014

AMRIK SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT SINGLA/D.K SINGHLA.

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                     

Execution Application No.	:	13 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	15.05.2014
Date of Decision	:	15.04.2015

 

Amrik Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Gurnam Singh all sons of Late Sh.Sucha Singh, R/o Village JaiSinghpura, Tehsil and Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.       The Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula and

          The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Abhineet Taneja, Adv., for the complainants.

Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Adv., for the Ops.    

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainants have filed the present application u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of the execution of order dated 04.09.2007 and the Ops were directed:-

“a)     to allot a 10 marla plot in Sector 27, Panchkula in the name of the complainants on the price initially fixed by the Ops which is Rs.3395/- per sq. meter while floating scheme for allotment of residential plots of the said sector in the year 2001; and

b)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs of proceedings.

2. Aggrieved by that order, the Ops filed first appeal No.954 of 2008 before the Hon’ble State Commission on 08.04.2008. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 15.11.2011 and passed the following order:-

“For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit.

3. However, during the pendency of the above said appeal, the complainants filed the execution application before this Forum as there was no stay, the Ops allotted plot No.345, Sector-27, Panchkula in favour of the complainants by allotment letter dated 02.06.2008. In the allotment letter, the Ops mentioned that the allotment is subject to decision of Higher Court upto Apex Court.
4. The Ops filed revision petition No.1308 of 2012 before the Hon’ble National Commission which was accepted on 23.10.2013 and passed the following order:-

“16.   In view of this, we accept the revision petition.

17.     Respondents/complainants have already got the plot, no dispute survives. In case the complainants/respondents in the capacity of outstees have another grouse, they can approach the appropriate forum; except the consumer forum. We are of the view that the outstees are not the consumers.”

5. Notices were issued to the Ops. After the service of notices, they put up their appearance through Sh.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate. The Ops filed their objection. In the objections to the execution application, the Ops has stated that the execution application have been filed on the grounds which are false to the knowledge of the complainants. The present application is an abuse and mis-use of process of law and not maintainable in the eyes of law. This Forum after dismissal of the complaint is functous officio and cannot execute and entertain the execution. Since the revision petition of HUDA was allowed so consequently, the order of the Hon’ble State Commission and order of this Forum stands set aside. Therefore, the decision being in favour of HUDA, there was no necessity to file any other petition. The allotment letter has been withdrawn by the HUDA vide their letter dated 10.10.2014.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the records.
7. The facts as stated in the application regarding the passing of the order dated 04.09.2007 by this Forum in the complaint filed by the complainants, the passing of the order dated 15.11.2011 by the State Commission and order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition were not disputed.
8. The contention of the Ops is that the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.1308/2012 titled as HUDA vs. Amrik Singh vide order dated 23.10.2013 has been allowed. The order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in first appeal No.954/2008 upholding the order dated 04.09.2007 of this Forum in complaint No.42/2007 stands set aside. He contended that the Hon’ble National Commission clearly held that oustees are not consumers; there exists no order of which execution can be sought. He further submitted that the Ops have withdrawn the allotment letter of the plot in question on 10.10.2014 and the cheque dated 30.09.2014 amounting to Rs.3,63,057/- has also been sent to the complainants/applicants.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant/complainants filed the reply to the objection raised by the Ops. He submitted that it is correct that the Hon’ble National Commission has held that oustees are not consumers but the facts regarding allotment of plot No.345, Sector-27, Panchkula was well within the knowledge of the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission has not disturbed the allotment of plot which was already allotted to the complainants. Moreover, the learned counsel for the Ops made the statement before the Hon’ble National Commission to the effect that “It is also argued that the plot has been allotted in favour of the respondents/complainants. Counsel for the petitioner, also admits that there is no question of getting the plot vacated from the respondents/complainants.”
10. A perusal of the copy of the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.1308/2012 titled as HUDA vs. Amrik Singh shows that in para No.8 of the order, the Hon’ble National Commission has mentioned that “It is also argued that the plot has been allotted in favour of the respondents/complainants. Counsel for the petitioners, also admits that there is no question of getting the plot vacated from the respondents/complainants. However, she submits that the order passed by the State Commission is wrong and that should be reserved, otherwise it would become a precedent. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that allotment letter clearly mentions that allotment will be subject to the Higher Court, upto the Apex Court.”
11. In para 17 of that order, the Hon’ble National Commission has also mentioned that “Respondents/complainants have already got the plot, no dispute survives. In case the complainants/respondents in the capacity of outstees have another grouse, they can approach the appropriate forum; except the consumer forum. We are of the view that the outstees are not the consumers.”
12. From the above, it is clear that the Hon’ble National Commission while relying upon the statement of the learned counsel for the Ops kept the allotment of plot intact and the same was not cancelled. The Ops have not filed any further petition, whereas the Ops were at liberty to seek the clarification from the Hon’ble National Commission in case they have any doubt about the cancellation of the plot.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered opinion that the applicants/complainants are entitled to restitution of plot No.345, Sector-27, Panchkula allotted to them vide allotment letter dated 02.06.2008. The Ops are directed to restore the plot No.345, Sector-27, Panchkula in favour of the applicants/complainants and hand over the possession of the plot No.345, Sector-27, Panchkula within a period of 2 months from the date of passing of this order.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

 

Dt.15.04.2015      (Anil Sharma)           (Anita Kapoor)                  (Dharam Pal)

                             Member                      Member                             President