State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Haryana Urban Development Authority, ... vs Gurdayal Singh Son Of Prithi Singh, ... on 6 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.133 of 2014 Date of Institution: 21.02.2014 Date of Decision: 06.03.2014 Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-12, Faridabad through its Estate Officer. Appellant (Opposite Party) Versus Gurdayal Singh son of Prithi Singh, Resident of House No.28, Kilokri, Near Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. Respondent (Complainant) CORAM: Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. Present: Shri Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for appellant. O R D E R
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:
Gurdayal Singh-complainant (respondent herein) had purchased Plot No.1475-P, Sector-28, Faridabad from Smt. Mridhu Dilawari, who was the original allottee. Re-allotment letter dated April 26th, 1999 was issued in favour of respondent vide memo No.2031.
2. One R. Malhotra filed a civil suit against the original allottee seeking injunction order from alienating the property in suit. Thereafter, the appellant withdrew the re-allotment letter. However, the said civil suit was dismissed. Even the appeal against the judgment of dismissal was also dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment dated February 24th, 2009. The respondent-complainant moved an application dated September 22, 2008 in the office of appellant for issuance of the re-allotment letter of the plot. All the required documents were supplied by the respondent to the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for re-issue of allotment letter giving reference of the fact that the Civil Court had already finally disposed of the civil suit on the basis of which the re-allotment letter was withdrawn. The opposite party (appellant herein) not issuing the allotment letter afresh, the respondent filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Faridabad.
3. The appellant-opposite party contested the complaint raising plea that the original allottee should again apply for transfer of the plot in favour of the respondent.
4. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, District Forum vide order dated January 3rd, 2014 issued following direction:-
..the respondent is directed to issue re-allotment letter of plot No.1475-P, Sector-28, Faridabad, in favour of the complainant at the earliest and the respondent will not charge any extension fee from the complainant till the re-allotment letter is issued.
5. In appeal, the only contention raised was that the fresh application should have been filed by the original allottee namely Smt. Mridhu Dilawari for transfer of the plot in favour of the respondent-complainant.
6. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The original allottee has already completed her action by filing an application earlier with the appellant and the appellant having completed the action by issuing re-allotment letter in favour of the respondent. Merely because of some civil suit, wherein there was no restraint order against the appellant and even the said civil suit already stood dismissed and attained finality upto the Appellate Court, the action of the appellant for not either reviving the original allotment letter issued or issuing fresh allotment letter, was certainly a deficiency of service.
7. In view of the above, no irregularity or illegality is found in the order under challenge in this appeal.
8. Hence, finding no merit the appeal is dismissed.
Announced:
06.03.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member CL