Chandigarh

StateCommission

MA/975/2019

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Complainant(s)

Versus

Late Sh. Jatinder Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

07 Sep 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Miscellaneous Application No. In A/RBT/1134/2008	:	975 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	19.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	07.09.2021

 

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Now HSVP, Plot No.C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula, PIN: 134109, HARYANA.
2. Estate Officer, HUDA, Now HSVP, Sector-18, Panipat, PIN: 132103, HARYANA.

                                      ..Appellants.

Versus

Late Sh. Jatinder Kumar son of Shri Hans Raj r/o 635, Lal Khani, Tehsil JHAJJAR, District Jhajjar, Haryana through his Legal heir and only son Sh. Swapnil, now resident of B-6 Tower, Flat No.P001, Sector-87, SRS Royal Hills City, FARIDABAD, PIN: 121002, District FARIDABAD, Haryana.

…..Applicant/respondent/complainant.

3. Chairman Single Window Service Committee C/o General Manager, District Industries Centre, PIN: 132103, HARYANA.
4. Convener, Single Window Service Committee C/o General Manager, District Industries Centre, PIN: 132103, HARYANA.
5. Estate Officer/Manager, HSSIIDC, Karnal, Camp Office: Chautala Road, Panipat, PIN: 132103, District PANIPAT, Haryana.

 

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                    

Present through Video Conferencing:-      

Sh. Saksham Arora, Advocate for the applicant/complainant.

Sh. Surinder Chaudhary, Advocate for Estate Officer, HUDA, HSVP, Panipat.

Sh. Piyush Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.5-HSSIIDC.

Non-applicants/respondents No.2 to 5 exparte vide order dated 10.01.2020.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA,  MEMBER         

                   This application has been filed by the complainant under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for annulment of order dated 13.01.2009 passed by this Commission in Appeal No.2995/2001 (Hry) RBT/1134/2008 alleging fraud on the part of the appellants - Haryana Urban Development Authority  (in short ‘HUDA’) and its Estate Officer in obtaining the said order. It has been stated in the application that misrepresentation on the part of appellant No.2 i.e. Estate Officer, HUDA misled this Commission as well as Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short ‘National Commission’) to rely on a wrong sequence of events, which led this Commission to conclude and draw wrong inference, which was miscarriage of justice to the complainant. It has further been stated that the true facts were that the complainant, applicant’s father applied vide application dated 26.2.1992 for plot of 1000 sq. mtr. size in Sector 25 against plot No.35. It has further been stated that application dated 19.4.1990 of the complainant for a plot in Sector 25/29 for a ½ acre or 2000 sq. mtrs size was since rejected by plot allotment committee on 26.4.1990 and on 25.2.1992, the complainant duly got withdrawn the same in writing under due official receipt. It is further stated in the application that appellant No.2 not only gave false information to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat but also to this Commission and to its head office i.e. appellant No.1. Counsel for the applicant/complainant alongwith the final arguments filed also annexed plethora of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, to contend that where a decision is vitiated by fraud, proper course would be to approach the Court which has rendered the decision for redressal and the said Court or Tribunal is bound to go into the allegation of fraud/forgery by recording evidence and the said Court/Tribunal has inherent power to recall its judgment.

2.                On the other hand, in their joint reply filed to the application, HUDA and its Estate officer have submitted that the application is not maintainable in the present form. It was stated that the complainant applied for allotment of plot of 1000 sq. meters in 1990 and he was allotted a plot measuring 592.96 sq. meters @Rs.355/- per sq. meter in Sector 29, HUDA, Panipat in March, 1992. As he was interested in allotment of plot in Sector 25 and not in Sector 29, Panipat, on his representation, he was allotted plot measuring 1000 sq. meters on 5.1.1993 @Rs.408/- per sq. meter in Sector 29, HUDA, Panipat, which was the issue in question raised by the complainant. In the written arguments filed on behalf of Estate Officer, HUDA and HSSIIDC, it was stated that there was no concealment on the part of the appellants and the judgment of this Commission, annulment whereof is being sought by the complainant, has already become final up-to the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. It was further stated that originally the complaint was filed in the year 1998 in Panipat and all the documents, written statement, evidence was adduced at Panipat and this Commission was only an appellate authority and as such, has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present application. It was argued that the complainant never alleged any fraud or concealment before the Consumer Fora at any stage and as such, this application is not maintainable at all and prayer for dismissal of the same has been made.

3.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record and the written arguments carefully.

4.                It may be stated here that initially, the applicant/complainant filed complaint No.289 of 1998 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat on 30.09.1998 which was accepted by the said District Forum vide order dated 15.05.2001 with certain directions to the opposite parties and for suffering financial loss and monetary harassment, the complainant was awarded 7,000/- alongwith a sum of Rs.3,300/- as litigation expenses. The said order dated 15.05.2001 was challenged by the opposite parties before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana in Appeal Case No.2995/2001(Hry). The said appeal on being transferred to this Commission was registered as RBT/1134/2008). After carefully going through the record of the case, this Commission by passing detailed order dated 13.01.2009 accepted the said appeal and the complaint was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant preferred Revision Petition No.1586 of 2009 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The said revision petition was also dismissed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 12.05.2009. The relevant observations made by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in its order dated 12.05.2009 reads thus:-

          “We heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and perused the material on record. The sequence of events are not in dispute that the petitioner applied for allotment of plot of 1000 sq. mtr. way back in 1990 and he was allotted a plot admeasuring 592.96 sq. mtr. @Rs.355 per sq. mtr. In March 1992. Since the petitioner/complainant was not satisfied either with the area allotted (less than 1000 sq. mtr.) or with the sector (he wanted allotment in sector 25), he took up the matter with the respondent, who allotted him a plot admeasuring more than 1000 sq. mtr. on 5.1.93 @ Rs.408 per sq. mtr., which is the issue in question, i.e., alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

            There is a clear reference in the order passed by the State Commission, that in the application made by the petitioner before the respondent, originally, he had sought allotment of plot in Sector 25 / 29. The petitioner has drawn our attention to the application appearing at page 49 of the paper-book, in which the application states that allotment of plot in sector 25 Panipat. It needs to be stated that this application appearing at page 49 of the paper-book in which allotment in Sector 25 / 29 is sought has been made in 1992, whereas in the order passed by the State Commission reference is to the application made originally in way back on 17.4.90, in which the application was for allotment of plot in sector 25 / 29, (Para 5 of the impugned order) which remains unrebutted. The inability on the part of the petitioner to show us the application made in 1990 drives us to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner that he is concealing the fact that original application for allotment of plot in sector 25 / 29 and since the respondent have allotted plot in sector 29, no deficiency in service could be fastened against them.

            It is by now settled law that the authorities are free to charge the prevailing rate of the price of land valid at the time of allotment. We entirely agree with the reasons given by the State Commission that since it was the petitioner/complainant who was keen to get a larger size plot and a fresh allotment was made, the rate applicable on the date of fresh allotment would be applicable. In view of the facts as well as the settled law on the point at issue, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. This revision petition has no merit. Dismissed.”

5.                It is settled law that a petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. Annulment of judgment passed by this Commission has been sought by the applicant/complainant alleging fraud on the part of the opposite parties, who were appellants before us in appeal. No doubt, as per the settled law, as referred to by the Counsel for the applicant/complainant, where a decision is vitiated by fraud, proper course would be to approach the Court which has rendered the decision, for Redressal but in the instant case, the fact is that the order dated 13.01.2009 passed by this Commission accepting the appeal filed by HUDA and dismissing the complaint of the complainant, which was a detailed order, was upheld by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 12.05.2009 passed in Revision Petition No.1586 of 2009. At that point in time, the applicant/complainant never alleged any element of fraud on the part of the opposite parties before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. It may also be stated here that had it been the case of the applicant/complainant that extrinsic fraud was committed by HUDA at the very initial stage before the District Forum, Panipat, his complaint might not be admitted on the allegations of fraud but the fact is that his complaint was accepted and he was awarded relief by the said Forum. Now when this Commission accepted the appeal filed by the opposite parties and dismissed his complaint by passing a detailed order, which was further upheld by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, he is trying to bring the element of extrinsic fraud. In case, he was aggrieved by the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, he could have moved to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India but he chose not to avail that remedy available to him and now at this stage that too after a period of 20 years, he has come up with a plea of extrinsic fraud on the part of the opposite parties for annulment of an order passed by this Commission, which has already become absolute and attained finality up to Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Even the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in its order has clearly observed that “The inability on the part of the petitioner to show us the application made in 1990 drives us to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner that he is concealing the fact that original application for allotment of plot in sector 25 / 29 and since the respondent have allotted plot in sector 29, no deficiency in service could be fastened against them.” Once the matter has already attained finality, as stated above, this application filed after two decades is not at all maintainable and is a sheer attempt to misuse the process of law. Thus, the application being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed straightaway.

6.                     For the reasons recorded above, this application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.                     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  

8.                File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

07.09.2021

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad