Puda vs Sham Lal Gamber & Ors. on 13 July, 2015
11. The next point taken by the counsel for the appellant that
the land owners had filed two writ petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petitions
bearing Nos. 23044 of 2010 titled as "Gopal Kumar and others
versus Punjab Urban Development Authority and others" and No.
14732 of 2011 "Dudhnath and others versus Punjab Urban
Development Authority and others", and the stay order was passed. A
copy of the order passed by Hon'ble Justice Ajay Tiwari dated
22.12.2010 has been placed on the record in which the order was
passed that in the mean time demolition of the properties of the
petitioner shall remain stayed. But details of the writ petition have not
been placed on the record to which property or Khasra Nos. in the
said writ petition was filed. It is not clear whether the plots of 226 sq.
yards were to be carved out on that land because the advertisement
was for plots of measurement of 450, 420, 400, 321, 300, 226 Sq.
Yards except the plot of 226 categories other plots were carved out
and were allotted. Even if we accept this version given by the counsel
for the appellant that there were stay order passed by the Hon'ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court with regard to the land, upon which the
plots of 226 sq. yards were to be carved out, it was the duty of OP
No. 1 to have its title clear and that the possession of the property is
with them before launching the scheme. Passing of the stay order
clearly indicates that the possession of a part of the property where
First Appeal No. 1030 of 2013 7
the plots of 226 sq. yards were to be carved out was not with OP
No. 1, therefore, it was unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1 to
launch the scheme without having exclusive possession of the
property where the plots were to be carved out. Then in case for any
reason, OP No. 1 could not have carved out the plots either on
account of stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court or for any
other reason then the complainants should not suffer for that. They
had taken the loan from the bank to deposit the earnest money with
Op No. 1, to process their application for the allotment of plots of 226
sq. yards category, but no draw was held and the amount was
refunded as it is, therefore, complainants have been penalized to the
extent of Rs. 7160/- each, which they paid to the banks to borrow that
amount to be deposited with Op No. 1 when their claim with regard to
consideration of allotment of plots of 226 sq. yards category was not
considered. Certainly, they are required to make the deficiency good
to the complainants. In case we analyze the impugned order passed
by the District Forum, we are of the opinion that the order so passed
by the learned District Forum is a correct order and we affirm the
same.