National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Haryana Urban Development Authority & ... vs Jagdev Singh & 5 Ors. on 6 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 714 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 08/10/2012 in Appeal No. 1060/2009 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINSTRATOR,
SECTOR-6 PANCHKULA HARYANA 2. ESTATE OFFICER, HIDA SECTOR-6 PANCHKULA HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JAGDEV SINGH & 5 ORS. S/O SH. GULAB SINGH,
R/O H.NO-1773, MAIN BAZAR ,
MANIMAJRA U.T CHANDIGARH 2. ASHWANI KUMAR H. No. 67,
Sector-16 Panchkula Haryana 3. VEENA H. No. 67,
Sector-16 Panchkula Haryana 4. RAJINDER KAUR W/o. Sh. Malwinder Jeet Singh,
R/o. House No. 1773,
Main Bazar,
Manimajra UT Chandigarh 5. VARINDER KUMAR S/o. Sh. Sanjiv Kumar,
R/o. House No. 1773,
Main Bazar,
Manimajra UT Chandigarh 6. SANJIV KUMAR S/o. Sh. Krishan Lal,
R/o. 1773, Main Bazaar,
Manimajra UT Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MS. ANUBHA AGRAWAL For the Respondent : Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for R-1
Mr.P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for R-2,3
NEMO for others
Dated : 06 Feb 2018 ORDER
O R D E R (ORAL)
Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short "HUDA") is to the order dated 8.10.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in FA/1060/2009. By the impugned order, though the Appeal filed by HUDA, against the order dated 11.5.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.216/2008, was dismissed by the State Commission in default on account of non-appearance of the counsel, but since similar matters, on the same facts and circumstances, are being decided on merits, we are taking up this matter for disposal on merits.
2. In the first place, allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of HUDA in issuing the allotment letter in respect of Khasra No.58/28, 59/141, 49/30/67, 53/6/6 admeasuring 12 kanal 7 marla, in the joint name of Jagdev Singh and other co-owner of the land, under the oustees Scheme, announced by HUDA, in lieu of the acquired lands belong to the Complainant, the District Forum had directed HUDA to re-issue an allotment letter in the sole name of the Complainant and to remove the names of other co-owners from the allotment letter.
3. Thus, the short controversy falling for consideration in the case is whether the Forums below were justified in issuing the afore-noted directions to HUDA?
4. The issue as to whether each of the co-owners of the land acquired were entitled to allotment of a plot under the Scheme, is no longer res integra. In Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Anr. vs. Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Etc., by its order dated 24.11.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, being SLP (C) Nos. 13375-13383/2013, preferred by HUDA against the judgment delivered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, inter alia, holding that each of the co-owners of the acquired land was entitled to allotment of a plot under the Scheme.
5. In light of the said authoritative pronouncement, no fault can be found with the afore-noted directions issued by the Fora below.
6. Resultantly, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER