ESTATE OFFICER PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Ropar on September 13, 1997 while allowing the complaint filed by Dev Raj gave the following directions to the opposite party-Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (known as PUDA) : " (i) Sh. Dev Raj is held entitled to allotment of 200 sq. yards of plot on 1.8.1995 when his name was illegally excluded from the draw of lots. Hence a plot of the said dimension be allotted in his favour in the Urban Estate of Mohali at the then prevalent rate of Rs.1,400/- per sq. yard within 90 days and the said allottee to be allowed to complete all the formalities as per requirement at the time of draw held on 1.8.1995. (ii) The aggrieved consumer is also held entitled to a token compensation of Rs.1 lac besides an amount of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) as costs payable by opposite party - PUDA within 90 days. (iii) In case the above mentioned relief is not made available to the complainant within the stipulated period, he would be entitled to interest on the said compensation of Rs.1 lac @ 18% per annum from the date of the complaint i. e.23.7.1997 till actual realisation. (iv) Any non-compliance of these directions is likely to attract the penal provisions of Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . " The aforesaid order has been challenged by PUDA in this appeal.

(2.) As back as in 1976, Dev Raj applied for allotment of 200 sq. yards of plot on deposit of Rs.810/-. Subsequently he was called upon to deposit Rs.3,380/- which he did. It was in October, 1993 that opposite party No.2. Estate Officer, called fresh options increasing rate of the plot at Rs.1,200/- per sq, yard and called upon the complainant to deposit Rs.20,000/-. The complainant complied with the aforesaid direction. A draw of lots was held on January 28, 1994. The complainant was not successful. Sub- sequently another draw was contemplated to be held in July, 1995. List of eligible candidates was displayed which did not bear the name of the complainant. Objections to the aforesaid list were invited and the complainant filed his objections on July 12, 1995. The draw was not held on July 14, 1995 as scheduled but was postponed. Subsequently another draw was contemplated. List was displaced and objections were invited. That was in July or August, 1995. Since the complainant had earlier filed his objections, which were not disposed of, the complainant did not file any fresh objections in July, 1995. His name was not considered in the draw and he approached the District Forum with the complaint, which was allowed with the reliefs as stated above.

(3.) The opposite parties contested the complaint inter alia asserting that the name of the complainant was not actually considered in the draw of lots held on August 1, 1995 since, he did not file any objections to the list of the names of the applicants displayed.