BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.141 of 2016
Date of Institution : 27.5.2016
Date of Decision : 07.07.2017.
Mohinder Paul son of Shri Ram Chand, now resident of H.No. 803, Sector 20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant. Versus.
1. The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.
2. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sirsa District Sirsa.
3. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonepat, District Sonepat.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… PRESIDING MEMBER
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.K.Malik, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the allottee of six marlas plot bearing No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa vide allotment letter No.1064 dated 31.1.2001. That a Haryana Urban Development Authority notice has been published in newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 12.4.2016 with the title “Farji Tarike se Huda ke plots lene wale 492 logon ko notice jari” regarding misuse of reservation quota and got allotted plots by using the reservation quota again and again and that HUDA has issued notice to these persons for one month in respect of 492 plots, situated at Sirsa, Rohtak, Jhajjar and Sonepat. It is further averred that in the list circulated by HUDA in its website, plot no.636, Sector 12, Sonepat has been shown to be allotted to the complainant. The complainant had not applied for allotment of the above plot in his name, nor he submitted any application or any other document for allotment of this plot to him. The complainant has not put his signature on any document for allotment of above plot at Sonepat. The complainant did not receive the allotment letter in respect of plot of Sonepat and no correspondence was undertaken by HUDA with the complainant in respect of plot no.636 of Sonepat. The complainant has not deposited any amount as registration fee or any subsequent amount in respect of plot no.636, Sector 12, Sonepat. It is further averred that complainant is a retired employee of State of Haryana, Education Department and he retired as Middle Head Master, Govt. Middel School, Peerkhera, District Sirsa, whereas the person in whose name the aforesaid plot no.636 has been allotted has been shown to be an employee of Industrial Development Corporation. So, it seems that the aforesaid plot has been allotted to some other individual person with identical name and parentage of the complainant but with separate address. However, in case it is found that the above plot has been got allotted in the name of the complainant then it be presumed that someone by forging and fabricating false documents in the name of complainant has got allotted the above plot in the name of the complainant. The complainant has got no concern or connection with the allotment of plot No.636, Sector 12 Sonepat. It is further averred that on publication of an earlier notice in newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 21.10.2013, the complainant had submitted a written reply/ objection to that notice and had requested for thorough investigation in respect of allotment of plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat and also for taking action against the real culprit who got allotted the said plot by way of forging and fabricating the false documents in the name of the complainant. The complainant had also got served a legal notice upon the ops through his counsel on 28.11.2013, wherein all the above aspects were made clear to the ops. However, it seems that reply of the complainant and legal notice dated 28.11.2013 earlier served by the complainant have not been considered by the HUDA Authorities and the record has not been scrutinized because in the newly published notice dated 12.4.2016 in Dainik Bhaskar, the above plot in the name of complainant has been again shown at Sr. No.66. The complainant has already made it clear to the ops that he has got no concern or connection with the above plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat and that he is only plot holder of plot No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa. Now in the newly published list, the name of the complainant as being allottee of above plot No.636 has been shown at Sr. No.373, which is factually and legally wrong. It is further averred that above act and conduct on the part of HUDA has caused unnecessary harassment, hardship, mental tension and pain etc. to the complainant. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to delete the name of the complainant from the list of alleged allottees of plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat and to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- for harassment etc. and also to pay litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. OP No.3 filed reply taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form against op no.3; that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering op; that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that complainant has dragged the op no.3 into the present wrong, false and frivolous case unnecessarily just to harass and humiliate the answering op and thus, the op no.3 is entitled to special costs as per provisions of law; that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true facts; that the Forum at Sirsa has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint in view of the fact that the property in question i.e. plot no.636, Sector 12, Sonepat is situated at Sonepat and the office of op no.3 is also situated at Sonepat. On merits, it has been submitted that as per records of op no.3 at Sonepat, the plot no.636, Sector 12, Sonepat was initially allotted in the name of Mohinder Pal S/o Ram Chander C/o Haryana Agro Industries Corporation, SCO No.825-826, Sector 22, Chandigarh vide memo No.2628 dated 7.5.1996 under D.Q. Category and thereafter, the offer of possession of the said plot was given to the said allottee i.e. Mohinder Pal S/o Ram Chander vide memo No.6597 dated 26.4.2002. Thereafter, the said allottee also furnished an affidavit dated 19.3.2004 duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh to op no.3 to the effect “he undertakes that he does not own any other plot or house in his name or in the name of his spouse/ dependant family member in Urban Estate of Haryana, Delhi and Chandigarh in any Discretionary Quota.” It has been further submitted that thereafter when the schedule of payment was over and entire dues had been paid by the said allottee Mohinder Pal S/o Ram Chander, a deed of conveyance was executed by the Estate officer, HUDA, Sonepat in favour of the said allottee vide document No.8898 dated 17.12.2004 and the possession certificate bearing memo No.18671 dated 2.11.2004 has also been issued in his name by op no.3. Thereafter, on the request of said allottee Mohinder Pal s/o Ram Chander who sold the said plot in favour of Subhash Chand Chauhan S/o Rattan Singh, R/o H.No. 936, Sector 15, Sonepat vide sale deed No.8899 dated 17.12.2004, the said plot was transferred in thename of said Subhash Chand Chauhan and re-allotment to this effect was issued vide letter/ memo no. 298 dated 12.1.2005 by the op no.3. Then GPA holder of Sh. Subhash Chand Chauhan sought permission for transfer of above plot in the name of Smt. Vijay w/o Ashwani Kumar, R/o RZ-2, Ganpati Enclave, Najafgarh, Delhi which was allowed by op no.3 and re-allotment letter vide memo No.5677 dated 18.4.2006 was issued in the name of Smt. Vijay wife of Ashwani Kumar. Further, on the request of said Smt. Vijay, the said plot was transferred in the name of Smt. Nirmala Goel w/o Sh. R.K. Goel, r/o H.No. 843, Sector 14, Sonipat and re-allotment letter/ memo No.2286 dated 1.3.2007 was issued by op no.3 in favour of Smt. Nirmala Goel. It has been further submitted hat thereafter, the said plot was further allotted in the name of Jai Kanwar Kaushik on the request of Smt. Nirmala and re-allotment letter/ memo No.7164 dated 12.6.2007 was issued in the name of Jai Kanwar Kaushik by op no.3 and after sanction of the building plan he has got constructed his house over the said plot and he is residing therein after obtaining occupation certificate. It has been further submitted that op no.3 neither ever received any application/ representation nor any legal notice with regard to plot no.636, Sector 12, Sonipat and thus, the question of giving any reply by op no.3 to the complainant does not arise and thus the averments in this regard need no specific comments from op no.3. All the other remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied and dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for opposite parties made a statement that reply filed on behalf of op no.3 may also be read on behalf of ops no.1 & 2 and they have not to file any separate reply.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C25. On the other hand, ops produced documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3, affidavit of Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Assistant, office of HUDA, Sonipat Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R4 to Ex.R11.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant has got allotted only one plot i.e. plot No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, Sirsa and he has no concern whatsoever with plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat. He has further contended that complainant has never worked in the office of Haryana Agro Industrial Development Corporation and had been serving as Teacher in Government School since 1984 and retired from the same department.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has contended that this Forum at Sirsa has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as disputed plot No.636 is situated in Sector 12 at Sonepat and list of allottees has been prepared by Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. He has further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that matter cannot be decided summarily as same requires elaborate evidence which is not possible before this Forum. He has further contended that complainant by hiding his identity got allotted two different plots unauthorisedly and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record available on file. Before proceeding further, we are of the opinion that following points with our observations thereon are to be discussed:-
(i) Jurisdiction of this Forum as per objection of ops:-
9. Regarding objection of the opposite parties regarding jurisdiction of this Forum, the fact is that Mohinder Paul son of Ram Chand, resident of Sirsa allottee of plot No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, Sirsa is the consumer of Estate officer, HUDA, Sirsa. Hence, in view of his relations with HUDA, there remains no doubt about the jurisdiction of this Forum in respect of the matter involving allottee of said plot No.803.
(ii) Deficiency in service:-
10. The Haryana Urban Development Authority in compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in CRM No.M-26292 of 2013 titled as Dharam Singh Yadav Vs. State of Haryana prepared lists of allottes who have obtained allotment of more than one plot under various reserve categories by submitting false, misleading and incomplete affidavits. A general notice was issued to such allottees through newspapers/ placement on website Ram Chand) at Sr. No.373. It has been mentioned against the name of Mahender Pal that he was allotted plot No.803, Sector-20P-II, Sirsa on 31.01.2001 under GSRQ and he has also shown to have been allotted plot No.636, Sector-12, Sonepat. At the concluding page of the said list, a note has been given by Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, which reads as under:-
“Note:- Utmost care has been taken in preparing the notice for the allottes who have obtained allotment of more than one plot under reserve categories against the declared policy as per report from Estate Officers. However, if any discrepancy is found in the notice, the allottee may contact the concerned Estate office in this regard.
Accordingly, as per Ex.C1, addressed to Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula under copy to Estate officers, HUDA, Sirsa and Sonepat and The Administrator, HUDA, Hisar, the complainant had submitted a written reply/ objection to the notice and had requested for the thorough investigation in respect of allotment of plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat. He submitted that he is the allottee of 6 marlas Plot no.803, Sector 20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa vide allotment letter No.1064 dated 31.1.2001 (copy Ex.C24) and that as regards allotment of plot no.636, Sector 12, Sonepat is concerned, in this regard, the applicant states that he had not applied for allotment of the above plot in his name, nor he submitted any application, or any other document for allotment of this plot to him. He has not put his signatures on any document for allotment of above plot at Sonepat. He did not receive the allotment letter in respect of plot of Sonepat and no correspondence was undertaken by HUDA with him in respect of plot No.636 of Sonepat. He has not deposited any amount as registration fee or any subsequent amount in respect of plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat. He has further stated that he is an employee of State of Haryana, Education Department and is posted as Head Master at Govt. Middle School, Peerkhera, District Sirsa, whereas the person in whose name the aforesaid plot No.636 has been allotted has been shown to be an employee of Industrial Development Corporation. The complainant had also got served a legal notice (copy Ex.C5) upon the ops through counsel on 28.11.2013 wherein all the aspects were made clear. But the concerned authority i.e. Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa as per direction of Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula miserably failed in rectifying things. Further, the Chief Administrator, Panchkula also did not take any action on the representation of the complainant, a copy of which is placed on file of the Forum duly acknowledged by Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa on 5.11.2013 (Ex.C1). The Estate Officer, Sonepat also failed in his duty to look into the aspect of allotment of plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and the Estate Officers of offices of Sirsa and Sonepat failed in their duties and are liable for deficiency in services.
(iii). The matter can not be decided by this Forum summarily as argued by learned counsel for ops:-
11. We are of the considered opinion that it is a case of rectification of wrong doings committed by HUDA officials while dealing with the case and question of detailed evidence is not involved in this case as the case is crystal clear and relates to deficiency in service to a genuine consumer of HUDA. Therefore, the plea of the ops in this regard is hereby repelled.
(iv). Multiple allotment of plots:-
12. As mentioned above in the foregoing paragraphs, the ops have shown the complainant allottee of said plot No.636 in the list prepared/ published/ placed on website which shows their blunder mistake, negligence and they have erred in not correcting things. The fact is that the complainant Mohinder Paul son of RAM CHAND has been serving as Teacher in Education Department of Haryana Government. He applied on 14.3.2000 (vide Ex.R1) for allotment of six marlas plot under G.S.R.Q category and was allotted plot No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, Sirsa. But the HUDA authorities shown another plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat to have been allotted to the complainant as mentioned at Sr. No.373 of said list. The complainant made the things clear through representation (Ex.C1) and legal notice (Ex.C5) that he is the allottee of one 6 marlas plot No.803, Sector-20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa vide allotment letter No.1064 dated 31.1.2001 (Ex.C24). As regards allotment of plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat, he requested the concerned authorities of HUDA that said plot No.636 has been allotted to some other individual person with identical name and parentage of the applicant but with separate address and the applicant has got no concern or connection with the allotment of said plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat. The official of Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat namely Sh. Dharamvir Singh Assistant has produced his affidavit Ex.RW1/A stating therein that he is employee of respondent HUDA department and fully conversant with the facts of the present case and fully competent and authorized being the employee of the respondents to depose on behalf of respondents and that plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat was initially allotted in the name of Mohinder Pal son of RAM CHANDER, c/o Haryana Agro Industries Corporation SCO No.825-826, Sector 22, Chandigarh vide memo No.2628 dated 7.5.1996 under D.Q. category and thereafter, the offer of possession of the said plot was given to the said allottee. It is placed on the record of the Forum that complainant submitted integrity certificate issued by Head Master, Govt. High School, Jodhpuria (Sirsa) (copy Ex.C25) as per requirement of the HUDA department. Being fully satisfied, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa issued allotment letter in respect of plot No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, Sirsa vide memo No.1064 dated 31.1.2001. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has admitted that plot No.803 in Sirsa estate has been correctly allotted and there is no dispute in this respect with Mohinder Paul son of Ram Chand. The counsel has further stated that the dispute is in respect of plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat which was allotted to him vide memo No.2628 dated 7.5.1996. From the perusal of record placed on file, it is crystal clear that the complainant has been allotted only one plot No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, Sirsa for the first time and he is not involved in allotment of multiple plots.
(v) Hiding identity of the individual (s):-
13. In the present case, the main issue is of identity of the individual(s) who is/are allotted two different plots in different estates on different dates. During the arguments, learned counsel for ops has contended that Mohinder Paul is one and the same person in case of both the plots who got allotted plots fraudulently by hiding his identity and thus, he is liable for appropriate action against him. But the opposite parties put forward no record/ cogent evidence in support of the claim except verbal submissions during arguments and we are of the opinion that the fact is otherwise. As per record available on the file, plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat was allotted to Mohinder Pal s/o Sh. RAM CHANDER, c/o Haryana Agro Industries Corporation, SCO No.825-826, Sector 22, Chandigarh vide memo No.2628 dated 7.5.1996. This fellow has stated in his affidavit (copy Ex.C14) his designation as Clerk in the office of Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.., SCO No.825-26, Sector 22, Chandigarh. He has further affirmed his residence address as village Ferozepur Jhirkda Distt. Gurgaon (Haryana) in the presence of Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh in his affidavit Ex.C17. A close scrutiny of documents Ex.C13 to Ex.C17, Ex.C22, Ex.C24, Ex.C25, Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and Ex.R9 to Ex.R11 revealed that both the allottees are two separate individuals and nothing common between them except the name Mohinder Pal. It will be appropriate to mention here that the case of confusion started with the issuance of allotment letter by HUDA, Sirsa vide memo No.1064 dated 31.1.2001 (Ex.C24) in the name of Mohinder Paul son of Ram Chander wrongly instead of Mohinder Paul son of Ram Chand resident of Sirsa and this allottee did not take up the matter with appropriate authorities at the right time. Further, on taking up the matter through representation and legal notice to Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and Estate Officers of Sirsa, Sonepat and Administrator, Hisar, the Chief Administrator including the concerned Estate officers did not take cognizance of representation of Mohinder Paul, resident of Sirsa to look into the matter deeply and failed to correct the things. Hence, there is no truth in the allegations of the ops that allottee of both plots is one and same party and he tried to hide his identity whereas the fact is otherwise. Both these individuals namely Mohinder Paul son of Ram Chand, a Govt. servant in Education Department and resident of Sirsa and Mahender Pal son of Ram Chander, a Clerk of Haryana Agro Industries Corporation, Chandigarh and resident of Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon are two separate individuals and have no relation with each other. So, there is no fault of the complainant as regard to hiding or trying to hide his identity.
14. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint partly and direct the opposite parties as under:-
(i) to delete the name of the complainant from the list of the persons who obtained multiple plots allotted fraudulently, as mentioned at Sr. No.373 and from all other such lists.
(ii) to issue a fresh public notice and publish in two daily state level newspapers out of which one must be in Hindi language stating therein correct state of affairs.
(iii) to issue a letter to Sh. Mohinder Paul complainant and confirm correction of things enclosing therewith copies of public notices as published in above referred newspapers.
(iv) to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainant Mohinder Paul son of Ram Chand, allottee of plot No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, Sirsa as he suffered harassment, humiliation, mental torture and setback to his reputation for no fault of him and suffered badly at the hands of Senior Authorities of HUDA. We also direct the opposite parties to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
This order of para No.14 (i) to (iv) should be complied with by all the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which each of Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa and Estate officer, HUDA, Sonepat will be liable to pay a penalty of Rs.300/- per day (Rs.100/- by each) to the complainant till the date of compliance, payable on monthly basis. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:7.7.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
