Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No.1 was allotted a plot of land measuring 400 sq.yds. at Patiala by the petitioner in the year 1987. Respondent No.1 applied for transfer of the said plot in favour of her daughter – respondent No.2. The permission was granted in the year 1995. Respondent No.2 furnished the building plans as well as the stamp papers for transfer of the plot in her favour in the year 1996. Neither the building plan was sanctioned nor the plot was conveyed in her name. Respondent No.2 made numerous efforts from 1996 to 2000 with the petitioner for the approval of building plan. She had also paid the non-construction charges up to 1996. That it is admitted that it came within the knowledge of the petitioner way back in 1998 that such a transfer had taken place. Yet, the petitioner kept silent for two years and proceeded to cancel the transfer of the plot in favour of the respondent in the year 2000. Ultimately, the transfer of the plot by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 was cancelled on 19.4.2000. Thereafter, a demand of Rs.71,880/- was raised by the petitioner as non-construction charges of the said plot. Aggrieved by this the respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum, vide its order dated 21.7.2003 partly allowed the complaint in the following terms : “As a result of final analysis we conclude that the opposite party authorities were deficient on various counts. Firstly, they wrongly, against the policy of PUDA, allowed the transfer; secondly, they wrongly accepted stamp papers filed by opposite arty No.2 for executing the sale deed in her favour; thirdly, they took long time in canceling the transfer; fourthly, the building plan submitted by opposite party No.2 was not sanctioned till the cancellation of the transfer; fifthly, they lingered on the decision of payment of non-construction fee from 1996 onward till 2002. All this make us to partly allow the complaint directing the opposite party (i) not to recover non-construction charges from the complainants from 1996 to 30.5.2002; (ii) return the unsanctioned building plan and unused stamp papers submitted by complainant No.2 (iii) shall allow to complainant No.1 two & half years’ time from 3.9.2002 to get the building plan sanctioned and raise construction without payment of non-construction fee (iv) execute the conveyance deed in favour of complainant No.1 within one month of the submission of requisite stamp papers etc. by her. (v) also pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to complainant No.2 for harassment, mental torture and inconvenience caused to her due to wrong transfer and its subsequent cancellation & pay Rs.1500/- as costs to the Complainants.” Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order, aggrieved by which the present Revision Petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the transfer was in violation of the terms of allotment, meaning thereby that the transfer could not have taken place before the expiry of 6 years period of the original allotment. But it needs to be appreciated that the competent authority had allowed the transfer in the year 1995. For any fault on the part of the Authority, the complainants cannot be held responsible. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the transfer in favour of respondent No.2 could not be allowed first because only after execution of the conveyance deed in favour of respondent No.1, respondent No.1 could transfer the plot in favour of respondent No.2. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Clauses – 7 and 14 of the allotment letter in support thereof, which are reproduced below : “7. On payment of 100% of the purchase price of the plot you shall have to execute a deed of conveyance in the prescribed form in such manner as may be directed by the Estate Officer. 14. No allottee under this policy shall dispose of his plot for a period of ten year from the date of transfer of ownership to him. However, the transfer of residential plot in the Urban Estate shall be allowed to be made in case of death of the allottee in favour of his heirs. However, the transfer can be allowed before the expiry of 10 years, in acceptional cases with the prior approval of the Govt. In case of allottee contravenes provisions of this para, the plot will be resumed and price paid may be forfeited by the Government.” From the reading of these two clauses, it cannot be concluded that respondent No.1 could transfer the plot in favour of respondent No.2 only after getting it registered in her name. Two dates are important : (i) in 1995, when the competent authority permitted transfer of the plot in favour of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 after taking the necessary charges and (ii) non-action on the part of the petitioner of returning or dealing in appropriate manner the application for approval of the building plan given by respondent No.2 in the year 1996. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was deficient in rendering service to the respondent. Dismissed.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
