Haryana

StateCommission

A/756/2016

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAKSHI SARDANA - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KAUL

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  :     756 of 2016

Date of Institution:     17.08.2016  

Date of Decision :      06.12.2016

 

Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

Sakshi Sardana daughter of Sh. Suresh Sardana, resident of House No.1317, Sector 13, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                      

         

Present:               Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for appellant.   

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

           Haryana Urban Development Authority-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.487 of 2013.

2.                Sakshi Sardana-complainant/respondent, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that she was re-allotted Plot No.2461, Sector 9 & 11 Hisar vide allotment letter dated 07.04.2004.  The appellant failed to deliver the possession of the plot.  The complainant requested to allot alternate plot but to no avail.

3.                The appeal was entrusted to the Additional Bench of this Commission. Both the Hon’ble Members gave dissenting version viz.  Shri R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member, ordered for dismissal of the appeal at admission stage while the other member Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, ordered for issuance of notice. The file was entrusted to the undersigned in view of dissenting orders.

4.                Learned counsel for the appellant states that there are many similarly situated plot holders, who were also allotted plot in this allotment when present plot was originally allotted but could not be delivered possession due to litigation with respect to the land acquired, which was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

5.                At this stage, giving directions to the appellant to give the list of vacant plots within the time bound frame and then giving option to the complainant to select the plot of her choice would be putting the complainant at a preferential position than other similarly situated allottees, who did not opt for litigation.  However, learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that they are ready to allot the plot as per scheme approved by the HUDA authorities. In these circumstances, it is a case which needs consideration on merits, therefore, I agree with Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, for issuing notice to the complainant-respondent.

 

 

 

Announced: 06.12.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

UK