Important decisions in favor of HUDA of various courts which are to
be mentioned as preliminary objections in identical matters pending
in various courts by the concerned Estate Officer, Administrators,
ADA/DDA and paneled Advocates |
|
Urmila Devi w/o Sh. Vidya rattan , H.no. 183/31, Ashok Vihar,
Sonepat Appellant(complainant) |
|
Revision
Petition No. 2046 of 2009, HUDA Vs Ushma Rani Dureja |
|
CWP
No. 15724 of 2008 titiled as Jawant Rai v. State of Haryana Order. |
|
Jacob
Vs Director of Gealogy and Mining (2008)10 SCC 115
On the issue of deciding representation and consequences of court
orders to decide representation. |
|
CIVIL
APPEAL NO (s). 2381 of 2003 HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RAJE
Ram and Ors.
HUDA Vs Raje Ram, I (2009) CPJ (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
has held that where the possession is given at old rate, party has
got benefit of escalation in price of land, hence interest should
not be awarded on amounts paid by the allottees due to delay in
allotment, in view of which award of interest is neither warranted
nor justified.
|
|
CWP NO. 7280 of 2014 HUDA Vs Jitender Kumar Jain.
The Plea of Allottee of resumed plot to make payment alongwith interest etc. at a belated stage which would cause an avoidable loss to the State exchequer cannot be allowed.
|
|
CWP NO. 2557 of 2013 HUDA Vs Shashi Taneja and another.
Resumption Of Commercial Property
|
|
First
Appeal No. 2806 of 2004, HUDA Vs Sudesh Mutneja. |
|
Civil
Appeal No. 1994 of 2006, U.T. Chandigarh Administratation & Anr. Vs
Amarjeet Singh & Ors. |
|
First
Appeal No. 1432 of 2002, M/s Golden Horse Box Makers |
|
CWP No. 9969
of 2013 Raghbir Singh Vs HUDA & ORS |
|
C.W.P No. 9699 of
1992 Rajpal Singh |
|
CWP No.16580 of
2014 Harbhajan Singh Vs HUDa & ORS |
|
C.W.P No. 13547
of 2014 Madhu bhatla Vs State of Haryana & ORS |
|
C.W.P No. 24173
of 2013 sarvesh Kumari Vs State of Haryana & ORS |
|
>C.W.P No.
18088
of 2013 Vijay Kumar Vs State of Haryana & ORS |
|
Civil
Appeal No. 605 of 2009, Secretary, Bhubaneswar Development Authority
Vs Susanta Kumar Mishra (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14461 of 2007). |
|
Decision of the State Commission on the ground of Jurisdiction |
|
Resumption due to non-payment upheld |
|
Cancellation Due to non-deposit of 15% amount upheld |
|
Paramilitary persons retired from CRPF etc. are not ex-servicemen |
|
CWP No. 12062 of 2013
Narender kumar vs HUDA & another |
|
CWP No.20608 of 2016 titled as Sushila Devi Vs State of Haryana and
others |
|
CWP No. 6575 of 1986
Krishan lal vs state of Haryana |
|
CWP NO.1497 of 2011 Raj
bala vs HUDA & anothers |
|
CWP
NO. 2557 OF 2013 SHASHI TANEJA & ANR vs STATE OF HARYANA & anothers |
|
Cancellation of alternative plot when original plot become clear
upheld |
|
The NCDRC
held that purchaser who purchases commercial property in open
auction is not a consumer |
|
Computerization of Plot & Property and providing user id's to the
allottees |
|
Resumption on account of non payment upheld |
|
Resumption on account of non
payment |
|
Resumption on account of non
payment |
|
Resumption due to non-payment |
|
Resumption due to non payment of commercial site |
|
Cancellation of amount due to non-deposit of 15% amount upheld |
|
Guidelines for the Appellate
and Revisional Authorities to decide the Appeals/ Revisions u/s 17
of the HUDA Act, 1977- CWP
No. 19503 of 2010 titled as Suresh Chand Vs State of Haryana and
others |
|
Allotment
under DQ Category- Non-deposit of 25% amount in time-writ petition
dismissed and cancellation upheld |
|
Industrial plots to be allotted through advertisement- If no
allotment letter was issued- no enforceable right accrues
|
|
Conduct of petitioner in depositing amount in bank account of HUDA
unilaterally, without any permission after resumption of plot is
unauthorized. Resumption upheld & writ petition dismissed.
|
Dyeing Unit Matters |
|
C.W.P.
No. 8619 of 2009, M/s Longowal Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd Vs HUDA
|
|
C.W.P.
No. 8617 of 2009, M/s Aggarwal Spinning Mills Vs HUDA |
|
C.W.P.
No. 8735 of 2009, M/s Wooltex Ltd Vs HUDA |
|
Plot purchased in open auction - purchaser / allottee required to
communicate acceptance or refusal within 30 days ? No acceptance /
refusal sent within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment
letter ? offer of allotment stood automatically cancelled ? Disposal
of land and building, Regulations 1978, Regulation-5 (5) |
|
C.W.P.
No. 5118 of 1982, Aruna Luthra Vs State of Haryana |
Limitation Act, 1963, Section-5 ? Condonation of delay ? Sufficient
cause ? Court directed to make justifiably liberal approach in the
matter ? Doctrine of equality ? States cannot be given stepmotherly
treatment |
|
Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987,
Collector Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and Others, decided by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India |
|
|
C.W.P.
No. 5340 of 2006, HUDA Vs Presiding Officer etc.
|
|
Civil
Appeal No. 857 and 988 (N) of 1984, G. Ramegowda, Major and Basavalingappa Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banglore. |
|
First
Appeal No. 2249 of 2006, Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs
Pooja Rani. |
|
First
Appeal No. 2250 of 2006, Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs
Jyoti Kansal. |
|
First
Appeal No. 3367 of 2001, HUDA Vs Shashi Sahni.
First Appeal No. 1631 of
2005, HUDA Vs Savita Kumari
Plot originally allotted was subsequently transferred / got
purchased ? Subsequent purchaser should not have purchased with
closed eye ? should have seen the location, situation of the plot ?
once the plot was repurchased ? no groups ? First Appeal filed by
HUDA was accepted by the Hon'ble State Commission. |
|
Revision Petition No. 4171
of 2012 Titled Dharmpal Vs HUDA
Appellant had purchased the property
for commercial purpose, the complaint filed by him was not
maintainable |
|
C.W.P.
No. 7632 of 2007, Randhir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.
|
|
C.W.P.
No. 6858 of 2008, HUDA Vs Suresh Kumar
The award of Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity in
service is not sustainable as the workman was appointed de hors the
rules of appointment. Consequently, the impugned award dated
26.09.2007 is set-aside. |
|
C.W.P.
No. 3224 of 2008, Ram Kali Vs HUDA, Plot No. 327, Sector-11-12,
Panipat.
The
Hon'ble Court of the view that no relief deserve to be given to the
petitioner who is herself an encroacher on the land belonging to the
allottee of Plot No. 1900 and the HUDA land. She cannot seek any
direction for the allotment of 49.82 Sq. Mtrs of land. It is well
settled that whose over comes for equity must do equity himself. An
encroacher cannot be granted equitable relief. Moreover, there is no
legal right clothing the petitioner with a corresponding duty cast
on the respondents. The Writ Petition is wholly frivolous and the
same is dismissed. |
|
First
Appeal No. 1950 of 2002, HUDA Vs M/s Aggarwal & Co. and Ors.
This
case is fully covered by the decision rendered by this Commission,
as discussed in the precending para of this order. Accordingly, this
appeal is accepted and disposed off in terms of the order datd
19.08.2005 rendered by this Commission in First Appeal No. 2477 of
2002, titled as Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar Vs Sant Lal Arya etc.
Consenquently, the impugned order is quashed and the complaint is
dismissed. |
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertaining and decide the Civil
Suit in view of Section-50 (2) of HUDA Act 1977 |
|
RSA
No. 3407 of 2001, M/s East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs HUDA & Anr.
Plot
resumed ? Civil Suit filed - Dismissed ? Appeal and RSA were also
dismissed. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred U/S 50 (2) of
HUDA Act 1977. |
|
RSA No. 457 of 2007, Sadawanti & Ors
Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.
Civil Suit filed - Dismissed ? Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred
U/S 50 (2) of HUDA Act 1977 ? RSA filed was also dismissed by the
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court |
Industrial Plot floated at Panipat on ?First Come ? First Serve?
basis, Applications received in a particular month, were to be
treated as a block and the plots were to be allotted on an on going
?First Come ? First Serve? basis |
|
CWP
No. 18230 of 2007, M/s Pooja Enterprises Vs State of Haryana,
decided on 4.11.08 .
HUDA
floated Industrial Plots ? Petitioner applied ? Interviewed ? No
plot allotted - CWP filed for allotment of Industrial Plot at
Panipat ? Challenged ?First Come ? First Serve? basis ? Petitioner
having no experience of Dyeing trade ? Past experience of Timber
Trade ? Petitioner having no technical knowledge of required trade ?
No plot allotted ? Hon'ble High Court held - Applicant in a single
month considered in a Single block and was to be decided on Merits
qua the merits of viability of project ? If no, suitable applicant
was found ? Next block of Applicants were to be considered on merits
? Plots were to be allotted who were found successful in respect of
project reports, individual merits, financial capabilities ? Mere
submission of Application not sufficient for allotment of plot.
Result: Civil Writ Petition dismissed. |
Surrender of plot by an allottee ? can not be restored even if the
allottee is ready to pay enhanced rate |
|
First
Appeal No. 2499 of 2005, HUDA Vs Ex. Subedar Major Mahipal Singh,
decided by the Hon'ble State Commission, Haryana on 4.10.2007
(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(e) - Consumer
dispute - Housing - Shop site - Auction of site - Jurisdiction.
Complaint maintainability - Plea that the District Forum had no
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the shop site was
allotted to the complainant on the basis of public auction -
repelled.
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) - Haryana
Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Act, 1978,
Regulation 14- Shop site - Allotment on the basis of auction-
Surrender of site - Refund - Provisions of instructions and
regulations that in case of surrender of plot 10% of the total
consideration amount, interest and other dues payable to be
forfeited - Direction of the District Forum requiring the appellant
to refund the amount to the complainant along with interest - held
not sustainable and liable to be set aside. |
|
CWP
No. 5371/08 Smt. Saroj Ahlawat V/S State of Haryana
. ? (2008(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 1 )
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act - Order restoring
surrendered plot by Administrator - Setting aside of by Revisional
authority - Held, since there is no provision in Act and policies/
guidelines to restore plot originally allotted in year 2000,
voluntarily surrendered by allottee, after 5 years again at the rate
prevalent during time of original allotment - Petition dismissed. |
Land Acquisition Cases |
|
CWP
No. 14509 of 2007, Shiv Kumar Saini Vs State of Haryana (Award
passed, compensation accepted and taking over the possession by
HUDA, Writ Petition not maintainable). |
|
Writ
petition no.10971 of 2004 Banwari Lal & others v/s the State of
Haryana & others |
|
Writ petition no.9281 of 2004 Lakhmi Chand & others v/s the State of
Haryana & others. (2008(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 773 )
A. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Section 5-A - Release or exemption from acquisition - The plea of
discrimination in releasing the land of another person cannot
constitute basis for declaring the notifications under Sections 4
and 6 of the Act as illegal - Others cannot claim to have acquired a
right for release on that basis.
B. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Satisfaction of Govt. as to its requirement and suitability of
land for the purpose - It is not for the land owners or the Courts
to interfere and substitute their opinion. |
|
Writ petition no.18500 of 2003 Surinder
Sharma v/s the State of Haryana & others |
|
Writ petition no. 3206 of 2008 Bansal
India Pvt. Ltd. v/s the State of Haryana & others |
|
Writ petition no. 978 of 2008 Ansal
Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. v/s the State of Haryana & others
(2008(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 739 : 2008(4) P.L.R. 166 )
A). Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 5-A - Release of land
from acquisition - Promissory estoppel - Legitimate expectation -
Principles of legitimate expectations are closely interlaced with
the principles of promissory estoppel which are based on equitable
considerations - No promise of a binding nature could be inferred so
as to assume the legal shape of a promissory estoppel mere from
correspondence in the absence of any such specific promise and the
petitioner changes his position to his detriment on that basis
B). Constitution of India, Articles 14 & 226 - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, Section 5-A - Release of land from Acquisition - Cannot
be ordered after the possession of the land is taken over and
further utilized. |
Oustees Cases: A person who?s land has been acquired by HUDA ? is
not a consumer |
|
Civil
Writ Petition No. 1038 of 2001, Smt. Bhagwanti Vs The Haryana Urban
Development Authority
Land Acquisition Act, Sections 4 and 6 - Allotment of Plot - To
oustees of land acquired - Purpose to ensure that persons are not
rendered shelterless - Petitioners failed to suggest that they
rendered shelterless when their land was acquired - Petitioners
submitted their applications for allotment of plot after prescribed
date - Authority is not expected to wait for more than four years
for an oustee to apply at his convenience and then proceed to make
allotments to others - No infirmity in action of respondents
proceeding to make allotment of plots to others.
2002(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 21 : 2003(1) L.J.R. 325 : 2002(1) P.L.J. 17
|
|
Revision petition no 3326,3327,3328 & 3182 of 2003 Smt. Prem Kanta &
Ors. V/S HUDA decided on 27-5-2008 (Oustee Matter)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer - Housing -
Allotment - Land acquired under Land Acquisition Act - Compensation
paid for acquired land - Allotment of residential plot under scheme
made as gesture of goodwill- No element of hiring of service for
consideration involved- Complainants not consumer under Consumer
Protection Act - Order directing allotment of plot(s) under scheme,
legally erroneous, rightly set aside in appeal by the State
Commission - No interference required in revision. {(Pg. 148) (Para
5, 6)}
Result: Revision Petitions dismissed. |
|
Important judgement of
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the oustee
quota writ petition no.5706 of 2005 |
|
C.W.P. No. 6129 of 2007 Titled Ramo Bai
and others v/s State of Haryana and others ,C.W.P. No. 7122 of 2007
Lilu Ram and others v/s State of Haryana and others (oustees quota).
(2007(3)
R.C.R.(Civil) 711 : 2007(4) P.L.R. 295 : 2007(2) I.L.R. (Punjab)
616).
C.W.P.
No. 3176 of 2007, Satbir Singh Vs HUDA.
Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 226 - Acquisition of land -
Allotment of plots to the oustees - Rehabilitation of oustees -
Policies for rehabilitation of oustees dated 18.3.1992 and 12.3.1993
framed by HUDA prescribing allotment of one plot to each co-sharer
of acquired land later on modified to allot only one plot jointly to
all co-sharers - Does not suffer from any vice of discrimination,
nor are offensive or oppressive - Rehabilitation policies are always
a benevolent act on the part of the State and cannot be claimed as a
right - These are always subject to various other aspects and the
intent of such policy cannot be to grant a bonanza to the oustees -
The sole purpose should be to rehabilitate the oustees. |
Interest Dispute Charge of interest - HUDA can charge interest as
per contractual obligation |
|
SLP
(C) No. 4436 OF 2008, HUDA Vs Raj Singh Rana, HUDA can charge
interest |
No Escalation in cost of construction due to delay in offering
possession
Delay in offering possession, allottee can not demand compensation,
keeping in view the invariable increased with price of plot |
|
First
Appeal 2772 of 2008, Brij Bala Nandwani Vs HUDA (No escalation in
cost of construction due to delay in offering possession |
|
Supreme Court judgment, SLP No(C) 12968/2006, titled as Municipal
Corporation, Chandigarh & Ors. Versus Vipin Kumar Jain
|
|
Hon'ble Supreme court case, Bangalore Devlopment Authority Vs.
Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711
(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) - Housing - Plot
allotment - Flats/house allotment - Delay in delivery of possession
? Non-delivery of possession - General principles regulating the
granting of relief to a consumer, who complains of delay in delivery
or non-delivery and seeks redressal under the Act, culled out.
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g) - House
allotment - Delay in delivery of possession - Interest - Development
Authority delivers the house during the pendency of the complaint at
the agreed price - Such delivery accepted by the allottee-complainant
- The question of awarding any interest on the price paid by him
from the date of deposit to the date of delivery of possession, does
not arise - The allottee who had the benefit of appreciation of
price of the house, is not entitled to interest on the price paid.
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (0) - Service -
House allotment - Where a development authority undertakes to
construct building or allots houses or building sites either as
amenity or as benefit, it amounts to rendering of a service and will
be covered by the expression 'service' made available to potential
users? referred to in Section 2(1) ( 0) of the Act.
(iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (0) and 2(1) (d) -
Consumer. Service - House allotment - Site with a constructed house
- Whether a contract for sale of a house premises, i.e site with a
constructed house, as contrasted from a contract of construction
amounted to 'providing a service of any description to a potential
user including housing construction' - The question left open for
decision in an appropriate case. |
Section-27 A of Consumer Protection Act.
Only trader or person who fails or omits to comply with order liable
for punishment, Appellant Board impleaded as party, Secretary not
impleaded, thus Secretary not liable for punishment because he was
never impleaded.
National Commission directed all Consumer Fora all over the country
that powers vested in the Consumer Fora under Section- 27 of C.P.
Act, 1986 are to be exercised cautiously and are not to be misused
or used in arbitrary manner.
(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 27 - The Consumer Fora
is required to exercise equitable jurisdiction so that harassed
consumers do not suffer - But, that would not empower the Consumer
Fora to exercise jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act in any
arbitrary and unjustified manner.(paras 1.6 and 20).
(ii) Consumer Protection Act. 1986. Sections 27 and 15- Non-bailable
warrants -Issuance of - Taking of undertaking from the officers of
the Insurance Company that appeal would not be filed against the
order passed by the District Forum - Held totally arbitrary,
unjustified and de hors judicial norms - Filling of appeal a
statutory right u/s 15 of the Act - Cannot be curtailed. - (Para 7).
(iii) Insurance claim - Motor vehicle - Repudiation - Ground that
vehicle at the time of theft did not have a fitness certificate -
Held that in view of the survey report as well as the documents
produced on record the repudiation by the Insurance Company not
justified - Insurance Company directed to reimburse the amount of
loss assessed by the Surveyor. - (Paras 13, 15 and 16). |
|
State Commission, Haryana,F.A No.321 of 2006 Board of school
education, Bhaiwani V/S Ankush Devi & Ors(Sec. 27A of C.P Act.).
|
|
National
commission, R.P No. 2235 of 1999, National Insurance Co. Ltd
V/S Mrs. Maya Gandhi. |
Middle Man or Estate Agent, who buy and sell plots are not buyers
for self use |
|
N.C.
Skipper Towers Vs A.P. Gupta decided by Hon'ble National Commission
(Middle Man or Estate Agent, who buy and sale plots etc. are not
buyers for self-use) |
Territorial Jurisdiction of Consumer Courts ? cognizance can not be
taken if immovable property is situated outside the territorial
jurisdiction |
|
Case No. 548/1993 Titled HUDA v/s J.K.Khana |
Admittedly the plot was situated at Sonepat, the complainant
filed complaint at Panchkula, which was allowed. No cause of action
has arisen at Panchkula. Merely because an office of OP situated at
Panchkula would not confer jurisdiction upon District Consumer Forum
at Panchkula |
|
First Appeal No.
1631 of 2005 Titled HUDA Vs Savita Kumari |
District Forum cannot sit over the order of Appellate Authority as
Revisional / Appellate Authority and to issue directions |
|
Case No. 3645/2001 Titled HUDA
v/s Sushil Chand & Others plot no.619/sec-14 Sonepat decided on
7-02-2008 |
|
The
delay of 249 days in filing of Appeal ? condoned. Suo Motu power of
State Commission Under Section- 17 (1) (B) of CP Act 1986 to call
for the record and pass appropriate order in any consumer dispute
pending, decided by Hon'ble District Consumer Forum which appears
without jurisdiction, not vested in Law, acted in exercise of its
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, District
Consumer Forum order is found totally without jurisdiction and
manifestly illegal, HUDA appeal accepted, District Consumer Forum
order quashed. |
National Commission has power to condone delay in depositing the
statutory amount
NC / SC ? Dismissed of First Appeal on account of non-deposit of
statutory amount Under Section- 15 A of the CP Act ? Appeal should
be heard on merit |
|
Case No. 3206/2006 Titled HUDA v/s Sunil Kumar Aggarwal
? Appeal should be decided on merit if petitioner deposited the
amount essential |
Time barred Consumer Complaint filed after two years prescribed
period as per Section 24 A of CP Act, Dismissed
Filing of complaint after 27 years of statutory period no
consideration of delay period starts from filing of complaint |
|
First Appeal No. 2630/2003 Titled Naresh
Juneja v/s HUDA plot no. 1667 sec-23 Sonepat decided on 20-11-2007 |
|
The
Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh Vs M/s Mittal Enterprises, the
Appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set-aside and the
complaint is dismissed
Industrial Plot allotted on 22.11.1978, possession delivered on
10.08.1989, complaint filed on 9.10.2001, hopelessly time barred.
|
District Consumer Forum should not have ordered the personal
appearance of Chief Administrator, HUDA |
|
Case No. 85/1999 Titled HUDA v/s Dharam
Singh Son of Bholar Singh |
HUDA can charge 10% extra sale consideration for preferential plot |
|
HUDA Vs
Lakhwinder Singh, First Appeal filed by HUDA accepted by the Hon'ble
State Commission (District Consumer Forum order set-aside) |