Haryana

StateCommission

A/49/2018

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHINDER PAUL - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KAUL

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA Panchkula

 

Date of Institution:12.01.2018                      

    Date of final hearing:17.05.2024

        Date of pronouncement:03.06.2024      

 

FIRST APPEAL No.49 of 2018

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:                                      

 

 

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

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

3.      The Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa.

 

                                                                                            .….Appellants

 

Through counsel Mr. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate

 

 

Versus

 

Mohinder Paul S/o Shri Ram Chand, R/o H. No. 803, Sector-20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

…..Respondent

Through counsel Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate

 

CORAM:    S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the appellants.

                   None for the respondent.

                  

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

 

                   Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 07.07.2017, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (now “learned District Commission”) in consumer complaint No.141 of 2016 filed by complainant-respondent was allowed and opposite parties (“OPs”)-present appellants were directed 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.

(v)     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.”

 

2.                The brief facts giving rise for disposal of the present case are that respondent-complainant was the allottee of 06 marlas plot bearing No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa vide allotment letter No.1064 dated 31.01.2001. It was alleged that the opposite party (“OPs”) published a notice in newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” dated 12.04.2016 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 was further alleged that in the list circulated by HUDA in its website, Plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat has been shown to be allotted to the respondent-complainant, whereas the complainant had neither 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. Moreover, the respondent-complainant has not put his signature on any document for allotment of above plot at Sonepat and he did not receive the allotment letter in respect of plot of Sonepat. It was further alleged that no correspondence was undertaken by HUDA with the respondent-complainant in respect of Plot No.636 of Sonepat. The respondent-complainant has not deposited any amount as registration fee or any subsequent amount in respect of Plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat. It was further alleged that the respondent-complainant retired from Education Department in State of Haryana 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 as of the respondent-complainant but with separate address. However, in case it was found that the above plot has been got allotted in the name of the respondent-complainant then it be presumed that someone by forging and fabricating false documents in the name of respondent-complainant has got allotted the above plot in the name of the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant has got no concern or connection with the allotment of Plot No.636, Sector-12 Sonepat. Moreover, the respondent-complainant through an earlier notice in newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” dated 21.10.2013, 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 respondent-complainant. It was further alleged that the respondent-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. Thereafter, in the newly published notice dated 12.04.2016 in “Dainik Bhaskar” the above plot in the name of respondent-complainant has been again shown at Sr. No.66 despite the fact that the respondent-complainant has already made it clear to the OPs that he has 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 respondent-complainant as being allottee of above plot No.636 has been shown at Sr. No.373, which was factually and legally wrong. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of HUDA which has caused unnecessary harassment, hardship, mental tension and pain etc. to the respondent-complainant and complainant prayed to delete the name of the respondent-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.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and OP No.3 filed its written statement, however, OPs No.1 & 2 have adopted the reply of OP No.3 as their reply by making a specific statement. OP No.3 while submitting its written statement had taken certain preliminary objections that the complaint was not legally maintainable and complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. Complainant was 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 OP No.3. On merits, it was submitted that as per records of OP No.3, 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 07.05.1996 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 26.04.2002. Thereafter, the said allottee also furnished an affidavit dated 19.03.2004 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/ dependent family member in Urban Estate of Haryana, Delhi and Chandigarh in any Discretionary Quota." It was 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 02.11.2004 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 the name of said Subhash Chand Chauhan and re-allotment to this effect was issued vide letter/ Memo No. 298 dated 12.01.2005 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 18.04.2006 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 01.03.2007 was issued by OP No.3 in favour of Smt. Nirmala Goel. It was 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 12.06.2007 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 was 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. Other allegations levelled in the compliant were denied and thus, there was no deficiency on the part of OPs. Finally prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                After hearing both the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint and issued directions to the OPs (present appellants) as mentioned in para 1^st (Supra).

5.                Aggrieved from the order passed by learned District Commission OPs have preferred this appeal.

6.                Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Sikander Bakshi, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. B.S. Mittal, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the entire record of the appeal as well as of the learned District Commission have also been properly perused and examined.

7.                Along with the present appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 159 days has also been filed. Before going on merits, this Commission has to adjudicate the application for condonation of delay. The grounds taken in the application on behalf of appellants is that due to departmental process the delay has been occurred, which may be condoned in the interest of justice and under the circumstances of the case.

                    While dealing with the application for condonation of delay, it is not disputed that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity, but at the same time it is to be taken into consideration that in case any legal infirmity is committed by the learned District Commission while passing the impugned order which is apparent on record, the same cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to no order in the eyes of law.

                   While dealing with the prayer for condonation of delay, reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be performed. It has further been held that the “Sufficient Cause” have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as “State of Nagaland Vs. Limpk A.O. and others, 2005 (3) SCC 752” has held as under:-

“11. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be held down by hard and fast rules. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Misra (1975) (2) SCC (840) this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram (ILR) (1918) 45 Cal. 94 (PC) it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari  (Air 1969 SC 575) as Bench of three-Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.”

                    In the instant case the learned District Commission has passed the impugned order by ignoring the statutory provisions for allotment of plots by HUDA-opposite parties and therefore in considered opining of this Commission, it is a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 159 days in filing of the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

8.                Main issue involved in the present matter is that as per the respondent-complainant he has got allotted only one plot i.e. Plot No.803, Sector-20, Part-II, Sirsa and he has no concern with the Plot No.636, Sector-12, Sonepat. On the other hand, as per appellants-OPs, Plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat was initially allotted in the name of respondent-complainant i.e. Mohinder Pal S/o Ram Chander C/o Haryana Agro Industries Corporation, SCO No.825-826, Sector 22, Chandigarh vide Memo No.2628 dated 07.05.1996 under D.Q. Category. However, as per respondent-complainant, he has never worked in the office of Haryana Agro Industrial Development Corporation and had been serving as Teacher in Government School and retired from the same department. So, the issues for adjudication before this Commission are as to whether the respondent-complainant has any concern with Plot No.636, Sector-12, Sonepat as well as whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of appellants-OPs or not ?

9.                While arguing the matter, learned counsel for appellants has taken a plea that learned District Commission, Sirsa has no jurisdiction to entrain and try the complaint because disputed plot in question bearing No.636 is situated at Sector-12, Sonepat and list of allottees has been prepared by Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that it is admitted by the appellants-OPs that respondent-complainant (Mohinder Paul S/o Ram Chand) is the resident of Sirsa and allottee of Plot No.803, Sector-20, Part-II, Sirsa, so he is the consumer of Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa and in view of his relation with HUDA, no question of lack of jurisdiction arises.

10.              As far as the question of deficiency in service on the part of appellants-OPs is concerned, in this regard it is pertinent to mention here that it is an admitted fact by both the parties that The Haryana Urban Development Authority prepared lists of allottes who have obtained allotment of more than one plot under various reserve categories by submitting false, misleading and incomplete affidavits, 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”. It is also an admitted fact that upon this a general notice was issued to such allottees through newspapers/placement on website WWW.huda.gov.in to show cause within 30 days from publication of the notice as to why allotment of all such plots allotted to them under various reserve categories be not cancelled for having been obtained fraudulently by submitting false, misleading and incomplete affidavits. Thereafter, Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula sought reply alongwith supporting documents, if any, to the concerned Estate Officer. However, one of such lists placed on the file contains the name of respondent-complainant i.e. Mahender Pal s/o Sh. Ram Chander (actual name of father of complainant is Ram Chand) at Sr. No.373 and it has been specifically 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 allottees 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”.

 

11.              It is also an admitted fact that thereafter, the respondent-complainant had submitted a written reply/objection to the notice and had requested for thorough investigation in respect of allotment of Plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat. As per the respondent-complainant he is the allottee Plot No.803, measuring 06 marlas, Sector 20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa vide allotment letter No.1064 dated 31.01.2001 and as far as the question of Plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat is concerned, he had not applied for allotment of the abovesaid plot. Moreover, he has not put his signatures on any document for allotment of above plot at Sonepat and he did not receive the allotment letter in respect of plot of Sonepat. Further, no correspondence was undertaken by HUDA with him in respect of plot No.636 of Sonepat and he has not deposited any amount as registration fee or any subsequent amount in respect of plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat. As per respondent-complainant 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. He also served a legal notice dated 28.11.2013 upon the appellants-OPs, 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 District Forum duly acknowledged by Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa on 05.11.2017, 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 discussion, this Commission is of the considered opinion that Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and the Estate Officers of offices of Sirsa and Sonepat failed to perform their duties and are liable for rendering deficient services.

12.              It is established that the appellants-OPs have shown the respondent-complainant as allottee of said Plot No.636 in the list prepared/ published/ placed on website which shows their mistake/negligence and they have erred in not correcting the same despite requests. It is also established that the respondent-complainant namely Mohinder Paul son of RAM CHAND has been serving as Teacher in Education Department of Haryana Government. On 14.03.2000, he applied 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 have shown another plot No.636, Sector 12, Sonepat to have been allotted to the respondent- complainant as mentioned at Sr. No.373 of said list. The respondent-complainant made the things clear through representation and legal notice that he is the allottee of one 6 marlas plot No.803, Sector-20, Part-II, HUDA, Sirsa vide allotment letter No.1064 dated 31.01.2001. 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 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. From the perusal of record it reveals that during the pendency of complaint before learned District Commission it was proved 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 27.05.1996 under D.Q. category and thereafter, the offer of possession of the said plot was given to the said allottee. Moreover, the respondent-complainant submitted his integrity certificate issued by Head Master, Govt. High School, Jodhpuria (Sirsa) 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 31.01.2001. From the perusal of record, it is crystal clear that the respondent-complainant has been allotted only one plot i.e. No.803, Sector 20, Part-II, Sirsa for the first time and he is not involved in allotment of multiple plots.

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. 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 07.05.1996 and perusal of his affidavit shows that 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. 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 31.01.2001 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 that 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 with regard to hiding or trying to hide his identity.

14.              Thus, as a sequel to the above discussion, deficiency in service on the part of appellants-OPs stands proved. Though, the learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint, but while issuing directions, awarded compensation and penalty on higher side. So, the impugned order dated 07.07.2017, passed by learned District Commission, Sirsa stands modified to the extent that the respondent-complainant is not entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- on account of harassment, mental torture etc. as well as present appellants-OPs are not liable to pay any penalty of Rs.300/- per day (Rs.100/- by each) to the complainant. However, remaining part of the impugned order remains as it is. Consequently, with these modifications impugned order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the learned District Commission, Sirsa, present appeal stands disposed off.

15.              Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt, identification and as per rules after expiry of the period of filing appeal, revision, if any.

16.              Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.

17.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

18.              File be consigned to records.

 

 

 

Pronounced on 03^rd June, 2024                                                 S.C. Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member

                                                                                                            Addl. Bench-III

R.K