Click here to visit the home page
Click here to see the site map
 

 Legal Wing

ContentFilter
CWP 6875 of 2013.PDF
CWP 6875 of 2013Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
To file written statements/replies etc. on first date of hearing- CWP No. 6875 of 2013 titled as Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs State of haryana and Ors.  
Email IDs.pdf
Email IDsUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
E-Mail Id's of HUDA Official
GUIDELINES FOR THE APPELLATE AND REVISIONAL AUTHORITES.pdf
GUIDELINES FOR THE APPELLATE AND REVISIONAL AUTHORITESUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
GUIDELINES FOR THE APPELLATE AND REVISIONAL AUTHORITES TO DECIDE THE APPEALS/ REVISIONS U/S 17 OF THE HUDA ACT, 1977
HUDA REGULATIONS.pdf
HUDA REGULATIONSUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Haryana Urban Development Authority(Conduct of Meetings) Regulation, 1977 and (Disposal of Land & Building) Regulations 1978 and (Erection of Building Regulations) 1979
Management of Litigation.PDF
Management of LitigationUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Regarding management of Litigation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and others Courts/Tribunals at Delhi.
Minutes.PDF
MinutesUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Minutes of the meeting held on 24.05.2008 under the Chairmanship of Sh. T.C. Gupta, IAS, Chief Administrator, HUDA.
Modification_instruction_dated_07.08.2009.PDF
Modification_instruction_dated_07.08.2009Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Notification regarding Amendment in HUDA Act, 1977.pdf
Notification regarding Amendment in HUDA Act, 1977Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Notification regarding Amendment in HUDA Act, 1977
Policy 1.PDF
Policy 1Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Daily Progress Report which is to be submitted by paneled Advocate.
Policy 10.PDF
Policy 10Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Submission of compliance report to the HQ in court cases after the approval of competent authority (Circular No. CA/1/2007 dated 20.04.2007).
Policy 11.pdf
Policy 11Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Example of a good Speaking Orders passed in case of Oustees Quota Plot.
Policy 2.pdf
Policy 2Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Model Reply / Written Statement filed on behalf of HUDA
Policy 3.pdf
Policy 3Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
The Haryana Urban Development Authority (Amendment) Act 2008 (Amendment of Section - 17, 18 of HUDA Act, 1977)
Policy 4.PDF
Policy 4Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Preparation of replies / Written Statements (Memo No. 578-609 and 684-707 dated 18.01.08).
Policy 6.PDF
Policy 6Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Procedure for defence of complaints / Courts Cases in HUDA. (Memo No. 5563-5700 dated 29.05.08).
Policy 7.PDF
Policy 7Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Procedure for defence of complaints / Courts Cases in HUDA. (Memo No. 3179 dated 28.05.07).
Policy 8.PDF
Policy 8Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Revision of fees of HUDA Counsels and new terms and conditions of engagement of HUDA counsels. (Memo No. 208 dated 7.01.08.
Policy 9.pdf
Policy 9Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Revision of counsel fee for the advocates on HUDA/State panel in the NCDRC and MRTP.
Policy for engagement of Advocates.PDF
Policy for engagement of AdvocatesUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Policy for engagement of Advocates
Policy for General Power Attorney.PDF
Policy for General Power AttorneyUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Policy for General Power Attorney
Regarding Transfer.pdf
Regarding TransferUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Regarding transfer of plot under reserved category.
Scope of Power of Attorney.pdf
Scope of Power of AttorneyUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Scope of Power of Attorney
TERMS  CONDITION REGARDING PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEE AS STANDING COUNSEL.pdf
TERMS CONDITION REGARDING PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEE AS STANDING COUNSELUse SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
Terms & Conditions regarding payment of legal fee as standing counsel

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. 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)

         HudaPowered
            Powered by: HUDA IT Wing