Haryana

StateCommission

A/189/2015

SURINDER SINGH TARAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

UMA GUPTA

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                 

                           First Appeal No.189 of 2015

                           Date of Institution:13.02.2015

                           Date of Decision: 13.01.2017

 

Surender Singh Taxak S/o Sh. Rohan Lal Taxak, R/o H.No.215, Sector-15 A, Hisar.

                                   …Appellant

 

                           Versus

 

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

2.    The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Jind.

                           …Respondents

 

 

CORAM: Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:  Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                            O R D E R

 

 

 

URVASHI AGNOHOTRI, MEMBER

 

 

1. Surender Singh Taxak – complainant/Appellant is in appeal against the Order dated 08.01.2015, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby his complaint regarding allotment of plot against Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors., has been dismissed.
2. In brief, 14 Marla residential plot No.498P-Sector 8 in Urban Estate, Jind was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 24.12.2008 under the General Category, while a 10 Marla residential plot No.212 Sector 8 was allotted to his wife, under the Government Servants Reserved Quota, vide allotment letter dated 01.01.2009 in the same Urban Estate at Jind. The wife of the complainant transferred that plot, by means of sale and the transfer was validated by the OP-2 vide letter No.14517 dated 12.02.2009.
3. But the complainant did not deposit the required amount within the time frame provided for by the allotment letter and opted to deposit the required amount of Rs.3,33,308/- vide bank draft No.031646 dated 19.02.2009. As the payment was made beyond time, the complainant also paid interest amounting to Rs.28,335/- vide Draft No.031792 dated 27.02.2009. The deposit, of the principal amount of installment as also the interest payable there upon due to delay in deposit of the former facet was accepted by OP No.2. Thereafter, the wife of the complainant transferred her own plot just in order to enable her husband to retain the eligibility for allotment of his plot. However, a notice dated 29.04.2009 was issued to the complainant to explain his eligibility to which the complainant responded vide letter dated 02.05.2009 by pleading that he was not apprised about his ineligibility earlier when his wife had applied for transfer of the plot. In the alternative, the complainant required the HUDA to refund the entire amount paid by him alongwith interest for delayed refund of the money. But, OP-2 did not agree and cancelled the plot. Aggrieved against that the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance, but the learned District Forum agreeing with the stand taken by the OPs dismissed the complaint vide order dated 08.01.2015.
4. Against the impugned order dated 08.01.2015, the complainant has filed the present appeal before us reiterating the same submissions, as raised by him before the District Forum.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. A perusal of the record shows that on 25.04.2013, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Jind cancelled the allotment of plot No.498-P, Sector 8 Jind by intimating him as under:-

“The plot No.498-P Sector 8, Urban Estate, Jind was allotted to you vide this office memo No.21374 dated 24.12.2008. Similarly, the other plot No.212, in Sector-8 Jind was allotted to your wife Smt. Sonika Taxak in GSRQ vide this office memo No.38 dated 01.01.2009. Both applicants were applied in the same scheme and succeed in the draw of lots. As per allotment policy of HUDA, you are entitled to have only one plot in your name/spouses or dependent family member. To this effect your wife Smt. Sonika Taxak has submitted the false affidavit also, that no other plot have been allotted to him/her spouses and dependent family member. The plot No.212, Sector 8, Jind had also transferred by your wife Smt. Sonika Taxak to the other person”.

          Further, regarding “the allotment policy of HUDA” as mentioned above the Terms and Conditions for the allotment of the residential plot of HUDA provides as under:-

          “Eligibility conditions:

          A

Any individual, who has ever been allotted a plot of land  directly by HUDA in the concerned Urban Estate (Jind/Rewari) shall not be entitled to apply-

                   ii)       Whose spouse or dependent child have acquired a plot by way of allotment or otherwise in the same urban estate, developed by HUDA”

 

             In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the claim of the complainant / appellant has rightly been dismissed by the learned District Forum. We fully endorse the same and dismiss the appeal filed by the complainant by upholding well reasoned Order passed by the learned District Forum. 

 

January 13t^h, 2017        Urvashi Agnihotri   R.K. Bishnoi

                                  Member                Judicial Member

                                 Addl. Bench            Addl. Bench