REKHA GUPTA,MEMBER - (1.) REVISION petition no. 2057 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 in first appeal no. 1835 of 2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( ˜the State Commission).
(2.) FACTS of the case as gleaned from the order of the District Forum are that the respondent/ complainant was the owner and in possession of land measuring 5 marla, i.e., 5/160 share of 16 kanal land comprised in khasra no. 13/19/2 and 20/2, 22/1 situated at Patti Afghan, Panipat. The above said land of the respondent/complainant which was in the shape of a plot situated in Devi Lal Colony, Panipat was acquired by State of Haryana for carving out Section 12, HUDA, Panipat. The Government of Haryana decided to allot six marla plot each in Sector 11 -12 HUDA, Part II, Panipat to the residents of Devi Lal Colony, Panipat whose land was acquired. Later on, in a meeting held on 03.02.2000 under the Chairmanship of petitioner/ opposite party no. 2, it was decided that due to non -availability of plot of six marla, plots of four marla available in the above said sector be allotted to the eligible persons. Accordingly, plots of 4 marla each were allotted to 19 persons but no plot was allotted to the respondent/ complainant despite the fact that he was eligible for the same and had deposited EDC amount of Rs.17,850/ - vide receipt no. 160508 dated 12.10.2006. The respondent/ complainant moved several applications and also issued legal notice dated 23.09.2008 to petitioner/ OPs to allot him a plot of 4 marla but to no effect and hence this complaint. It was the case of the respondent/ complainant that failure of OPs to allot him a plot of marla amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The respondent/ complainant prayed for a directions to OPs to allot a plot of 4 marla in Sector 11 - 12, Part II, Panipat to him as per HUDA policy by accepting the cost of the plot and adjusting the amount already deposited by him with interest. The respondent/ complainant also claimed Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5,500/ - as cost of litigation.
(3.) ON notice of this complaint, the petitioner/ opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply stating that the Director, Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Chandigarh vide letter no. U E III/ 87/ 1053 dated 09.04.1987 had prepared and circulated a list of persons eligible for the allotment of the plot of category in question under oustees scheme. That the name of the respondent/ complainant neither existed in the said list of 20 persons nor in the award list of the Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula, which was circulated vide no. 9776 dated 18.10.2006. The respondent/ complainant had been shown owner of 5/160 share of 16 kanal land comprised in Khasra no. 13/1, 19/2, 20/2 and 21/1 as per the copy of sale deed no. 510 dated 07.03.1982. The respondent/ complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.17,850/ - on his own without any demand or advice from the officials of Petitioners/ OPs and HUDA. Petitioner/ OPs have denied all other averments made in the complaint and also denied any deficiency in service on their part. While allowing the complaint, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat ( ˜the District Forum) vide its order dated 28.06.2010 observed as under: In view of our above discussion, the present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the complaint with the direction to OPs to allot a plot of four marla to the complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the complaint with the direction to OPs to allot a plot of four marla to the complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the complaint with the direction to OPs to allot a plot of four marla to the respondent/complainant in Section 11 - 12, Part II, HUDA, Panipat. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,200/ - is allowed to the respondent/ complainant to be paid by OPs . ;