State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The Chief Administrator, Huda, ... vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Wife Of Late Sh. Ram ... on 18 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1315, 1316 & 1317 of 2009 Date of Institution: 07.09.2009 Date of Decision: 18.07.2012 Appeal No.1315 of 2009 1. The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula. 2. Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector 13-17, Urban Estate, Panipat. Appellants (Ops) Versus Smt. Kaushalya Devi wife of late Sh. Ram Sarup Jain, Resident of House No.29, Malik Enclave, Opposite Sector 25, Part-II, Panipat. Respondent (Complainant) For the Parties: Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate for appellants. Respondent exparte. Appeal No.1316 of 2009 1. The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula. 2. Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector 13-17, Urban Estate, Panipat. Appellants (Ops) Versus Smt. Uma Jain wife of Sh.Satish Chand Jain, resident of House No.53, Malik Enclave, Opposite Sector 25, Part-II, Panipat. Respondent (Complainant) For the Parties: Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate for appellants. Respondent exparte. Appeal No.1317 of 2009 1. The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula. 2. Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector 13-17, Urban Estate, Panipat. Appellants (Ops) Versus Abhay Kumar Jain son of Sh. Satish Chand, Resident of House No.53, Malik Enclave, Opposite Sector 25, Part-II, Panipat. Respondent (Complainant) For the Parties: Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate for appellants. Respondent exparte. BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
These three appeals bearing No.13,15,1316 and 1317 of 2009 have arisen out of the common order dated 30.06.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panipat whereby three complaints filed by respondents-complainants were accepted by granting following relief:-
6. According to the policy of HUDA, if the acquired land of the co-sharer is less than one acre only one plot of 250 Sq. yards would be allotted in the joint name of the co-sharers. Further it is mentioned that benefit under oustees policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of co-sharers.
In the present case, the land of the complainants acquired is less than one acre, hence, all the three complainants/co-sharers are entitled for only one plot of 250 Sq. yards in the joint name. So far concern the ground of Op is that the land measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marlas in the name of M/s Ganesh Spinning Mills, that land was of Khasra No.7/92 and the complainants have no concern with the land released by the OP. The land of the complainants which was acquired comprising in khasra No.7/8 and 7/3/2 & out of these Khasra numbers, no land was released by the OP. Hence, under the policy of the OP, the complainants are entitled for one plot of 250 Sq. yards only in joint names.
In view of the above submissions, we hereby allow the present complaint with the direction to the OP to allot one plot of 250 Sq. yards only in the joint names of the complainants and the OP is further directed to make the compliance of this order within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this order.
Complainants (respondents herein) had purchased plots from one Raj Kumar, Sukhdev and Yogi Ram sons of Dukh Bhanjan Lal which was acquired for Sector 6,7,8 Urban Estate, Panipat vide award No.4 dated 7.5.1992. In response to the advertisement of HUDA, complainants applied for allotment of plot of 8 Malas under the oustee quota. All the complainants deposited Rs.72,126/- alongwith the application for allotment. The grievance of the complainants before the District Forum was that the opposite parties did not allot plot to them under the oustees quota despite legal notice dated 4.7.2007.
Opposite Parties while contesting the complaints stated that the claim of the complainants for allotment of 8 marlas plot in Sector 8 Urban Estate, Panipat under oustee quota was placed before the Committee headed by the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula consisting of other members. The committee was held on 31.8.2006 and after consideration of complainants case in the committee, it was decided that the land measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marlas in the name of M/s Ganesh Spinning Mills was released and further the CWP No.5177/97 was pending in the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh.
It was further stated that as per relevant provision of oustees policy of the HUDA Haryana was that if the land of any owners is released from acquisition, he/she would not be eligible to avail of any benefit under this policy (irrespective of the area of land released). As the land measuring 3 Kanals 18 Marlas had already been released out of Khasra No.7/9/2 in the name of M/s Ganesh Spinning Mills, so the committee decided to reject the claim of the complainants. It was further stated that the amount deposited by the complainants was returned to them and as per HUDA policy, the complainants were not entitled for the allotment of the plot.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaints and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence these appeals.
Heard.
On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the District Forum granted relief to the complainants without appreciating the prayer of the complainant as well as the documents produced on the record. Complainants had applied for eight marlas plot but the District Forum allotted 250 Sq. yards (ten marlas) plot. The District Forum has erred in directing the appellants to allot one plot of 250 Sq. yards in the joint name of all the complainants of separate complaint cases.
It appears that the District Forum has failed to consider the latest pronouncement of Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in L.P.A. No.2096 of 2011 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority & others versus Sandeep & others, decided on 25.04.2012 wherein it has been held that:-
Thus, the present appeal as well as the other connected matters are disposed of with the following directions, in addition to the decision on the questions of law discussed above.
(i) That date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is relevant to determine the eligibility of a land-owner for allotment of a residential plot, even if the acquisition is for the purposes of commercial, industrial or institutional;
(ii) That the entitlement of the size of the plot and the procedure for allotment shall be as on the date of allotment in pursuance of an advertisement issued inviting application from the oustees;
(iii) That the HUDA or such other authority can reserve plots up to 50% of the total plots available for all reserved categories including that of oustees. As to what extent there would be reservation for the oustees, is required to be decided by the State Government and/or by HUDA or any other authority, who is entitled to acquire land;
(iv) That the oustees are entitled to apply for allotment of plot along-with earnest money in pursuance of public advertisement issued may be inviting applications from the general public and the oustees through one advertisement.
If an oustee is not successful, he/she can apply again and again till such time, the plots are available for the oustees in the sector for which land was acquired for residential/commercial purposes or in the adjoining sector, if the land acquired was for institutional and industrial purposes etc. The plots to the LPA No.2096 of 2011 & other connected cases 46 oustees shall be allotted only by public advertisement and not on the basis of any application submitted by an oustee;
(v) That the price to be charged from an allottee shall be the price mentioned in the public advertisement in pursuance of which, the plot is allotted and not when the sector is floated for sale for the first time;
(vi) That the State Government or the acquiring authority shall not advertise any residential plot for sale without conducting an exercise in respect of plots ear-marked for reserved categories and after identification of the plots available for the oustees in each sector. Thereafter, the State Government or the acquiring authority shall publish an advertisement inviting applications from such oustees to apply for allotment of plots in accordance with law: and
(vii) If in any sector, more than 50% plots have been allotted by way of reservation including to the oustees, then such allotment shall not be cancelled or reviewed in view of the judgment of this court. The letters patent appeal and the writ petitions as in Annexure 'A' are disposed of accordingly.
In the above cited case the Honble High Court has considered the cases of oustees quota keeping in view the policy framed by HUDA on the basis of various pronouncements made by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh from time to time.
We are therefore, of the view that these cases are to be decided keeping in view the law laid down by Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Haryana Urban Development Authority & others versus Sandeep & others case (Supra) as the criteria has been laid down with respect to the size of the plot to be given to the claimants keeping in view their land holding acquired by HUDA for carving out residential/commercial colony.
Hence, these three appeals are accepted, impugned order is set aside and these three cases are remanded to the District Consumer Forum, Panipat to decide the same afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. District Forum shall dispose of the complaints expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of first hearing which in the instant case is fixed as 03.09.2012 on which date the parties are directed to appear before District Consumer Forum, Panipat. Copies of this order be sent to the parties and District Forum, Panipat forthwith.
The original order be attached with appeal nol.1315/2009 and certified copies be attached with appeals No.1316/2009 and 1317/2009.
Announced: (Justice R.S. Madan) 18.07.2012 President (Dr. Rekha Sharma) Member