Petitioner, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant/respondent purchased a residential plot bearing No.III-71 situated at C-Block, Sirsa in an open auction held on 12.12.1974 from the erstwhile New Mandi Township, which has now been amalgamated into HUDA.  Complainant paid all the instalments within the stipulated period and thereafter raised construction over the plot in question in the year 1984-85.  According to the complainant, he raised the construction after getting site/building plan sanctioned from the concerned authorities.  It has further been stated that he obtained electric, water and sewerage connection.  He applied for completion certificate on 17.8.2001, which was denied, aggrieved against which, he filed complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, appointed one, Shri Basti Ram, Sub-Divisional Engineer as Local Commissioner to inspect the site and file his report.  Shri Basti Ram went to the spot along with Shri Paramjit Singh, Junior Engineer after issuing Notice to the respondent.  The site was inspected in the presence of the respondent.  Local Commissioner gave the following report  :

In the above case , I Best Ram, Sub divisional Engineer. Appointed as Local commissioner by your Hon”ble court. As per Sirection, I visited the spot alongwith J. E Shri Paramjit Singh on 3.10.2003, after issuing proper notice to the effective parties to attend the spot on 3.10.2003.  On the spot Sh.Vijay Kumar son of Sh.Hans Raj, Sh.Ram Lal son of Sh.Kheta Ram resident of House No.118, R.S.D. Colony of Sirsa and Sh.Labhu Ram son of Sh.Nothni Paswan resident of C-71, C-Block, Sirsa were present.  No representative or any official of HUDA Deptt. attended the disputed site.  Thereafter I asked Sh.Vijay Kumar to produce the approved drawing of the disputed house, but he replied that drawings have been submitted in HUDA office.  In the absence of drawing, undersigned took the measurement with the help of Sh.Paramjit Singh J.E. and prepared the plan of the disputed site which is enclosed as annexure (LC –I)

The constructions are as under :

Total Nos. of completed rooms : 1 No.

Kitchen : 1 No.

Store (closed) : 1 No.

Toilet : 1 No.

As the sanctioned/approved drawings are not available, so the specifications cannot be compared.  Moreover the details of the construction are given in the attached plan/drawing.

It is pertinent to mention here that the constructions are of rural type and of the poor quality/specifications.

Sd/-

(Sub Divisional Engineer)

Provincial Sub Divn.No.3, Sirsa”

          District Forum came to the conclusion that the construction put up by the respondent was not as per approved plan.  In spite of coming to this conclusion, the District Forum held that the demolition in the present case was not proper and a direction was issued to the petitioner to compound the violations, if permitted under the rules, by imposing compounding fee as per HUDA rules.  The following directions were issued :

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana we are of the considered view that the demolition in the present case not proper.  Hence, we direct the Estate Officer/Administrator/competent authority of HUDA to compound the violations by imposing compounding fee as per HUDA rules.  We further direct the respondent/HUDA to settle the dispute within a period of one month and compound the violations within a stipulated period.  The complainant is directed to deposit the compounding fee imposed or assessed by the HUDA Authority as per HUDA rules within a period of one month.  We further direct the complainant to complete the requisite formalities i.e. to furnish Form BR IV and BR V.  We further direct the respondent/HUDA to recover the assessed amount from the complainant and issue the completion certificate and also execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant within a period of two months from the date of present order.  We further direct the respondent/HUDA to implement the present order within a stipulated time failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with costs of proceedings to the tune of Rs.2000/-.  The amount of compensation as well as costs of proceedings shall be recovered from the pocket of erring officer/official.  We order accordingly.”

          Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  State Commission, concurred with the view taken by the District Forum.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent did not get any plan sanctioned from the petitioner; that the construction put up by the respondent was totally illegal and in violation of the Act and Rules framed by the petitioner.  Respondent has not put on record the sanctioned plan allegedly obtained by him.  Under the HUDA rules, there are limits on the compounding of the violations committed by a plot-holder.  Compounding can be done if there are certain permissible violations, which, under the rules, can be compounded.  In this case, respondent has put up the construction without getting the plan sanctioned from the petitioner.  Respondent has not filed a copy of the sanctioned plan.  Construction put up by the respondent is totally illegal and the same could not be ordered to be compounded.  State Commission as well as District Forum have erred in directing the petitioner to compound the violations.

          For the reasons stated above, this Revision Petition is accepted and the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside.  Complaint is ordered to be dismissed.