National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Prem Singh vs Chief Administrator,Huda & Anr. on 18 July, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 882 OF 2012 (From the order dated 29.07.2011 in Appeal No. 660/2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) Prem Singh Petitioner S/o Dalip Singh Village Nanhera, Post Office Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt. Versus 1. Chief Administrator, Respondents HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula 2. State Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-7, Ambala BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Godara, Advocate Pronounced on : 18th July, 2012 ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This revision petition swirls around the question, Whether oustee is a Consumer?
The facts of this revision petition are these.
2. The complainant Prem Singh owned agricultural land at Village Nanhere.
The same was acquired by Haryana Urban Development Authority (to be referred as HUDA) for setting up a sector in Ambala Cantt. It was one of the condition that one residential plot under the oustee quota was given to the petitioner. The complainant accordingly deposited a sum of Rs. 36,329/- as earnest money.
Thereafter, he received an order regarding cancellation of plot on 22.08.2008 on the basis of non-deposit of 50% amount as per letter dated 06.06.2007. The grouse of the complainant/petitioner is that he did not receive the said notice and as such the letter of cancellation was illegal and arbitrary.
3. The petitioner did not appear before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. This is an indisputable fact that the petitioner is an oustee. The National Commission vide its order dated 2nd February 2010 in the case of HUDA Vs Uday Singh in Revision Petition No. 3456 of 2009 placed reliance upon another authority by the National Commission in the matter of Premkanta & Ors. Vs. HUDA & Anr. held that since the owners of land had received compensation for land acquired by HUDA, allotment of residential plot under the scheme was only a gesture of goodwill and there being no element of hiring service for consideration of petitioner authority from respondents. It is further held in that case the petitioner being oustee did not fall in the category of Consumer.
5. Aggrieved by this order, Udai Singh approached the Honble Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 16.04.2010in Petitioin (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No (s). 10379/2010.
6. We have perused the judgment of this Commission reported in Premkanta & Ors. Vs. HUDA & Anr. [III (2008)CPJ146(NC) . In para 5 it was held .
Under the scheme formulated by respondent Authority, the oustees whose land had been acquired, are entitled for allotment of residential plots of the size depending upon the area of the land acquired subject to their making application(s) along with 10% of earnest money. Decision to allot plot(s) is taken by the Standing Committee. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had received compensation for the acquired land. Allotment of residential plot under the scheme is made as a gesture of goodwill. No element of hiring of service for consideration of the respondent authority by the petitioners is involved in such allotment. Petitioners, thus, cannot be regarded as consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act as held by the State Commission. Orders, if any, passed by the District Fora in other complaints ordering allotment of plot(s) under the scheme being legally erroneous are of no help to the petitioners. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the aforesaid order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act. Accordingly, revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to cost.
7. The petitioners tilt at windmills, does not produce the desired result. The revision petition, on merits, deserves no consideration. In addition, there is 90 days delay in filing this revision petition. It is stated that the complainant/petitioner is 80 years old and that is why the delay was caused. To our mind, this is a lame excuse which tips the scale in favour of opposite party/respondent. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
....
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Jr/