Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— This order shall dispose of two complaints No. 15 of 1996 filed by Janak Kumar v. HUDA, and 30 of 1996, Jassu Ram v. HUDA, as factual and legal position as well as claims made by the complainants and the defence pleaded by the opposite party-HUDA in both the complaints, are identical.

Complaint Case No. 15 of 1996, Janak Kumar v. HUDA.

Complainant was allotted a residential plot No. 685, Sector 16 A, Faridabad on 4th June, 1981. He deposited Rs. 8,487.50 paise by way of 25% of the total cost of the plot within the stipulated period of 30 days, whereupon allotment letter dated 4th June, 1981 was issued to him. Despite repeated reminders and notices issued by the complainant, possession of the plot allotted above was not delivered to the complainant. Aggrieved against the same the complainant has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint, claiming the immediate deli very of physical possession of the aforesaid plot along with compensation for financial loss and mental agony suffered by him, as also for the increase in the cost of construction by way of escalation during the last 17 years-total amounting to Rs. 18 lacs.

Complaint Case No. 30 of 1996, Jassu Ram v. HUDA.

Complainant was allotted residential plot No. 686, Sector 16-A, Faridabad on 3rd June, 1981 and the complainant deposited Rs. 6,331.70 paise by way of 25% of the total tentative cost of the plot. Thereupon the letter of allotment was issued on 3rd June, 1981. Despite repeated reminders and notices issued by the complainant, possession of the plot allotted above was not delivered to the complainant. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint claiming the immediate delivery of physical possession of the aforesaid plot along with compensation for financial loss and mental agony suffered by him as also for the increase in the cost of construction by way of escalation during the last 17 years - total amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/-.

In their written statements filed by HUDA- opposite party, the factual position regarding payment of the deposits made by the complainants from time to time has been admitted. However, in their attempt to justify non-delivery of the possession of the plots allotted to the complainants, HUDA has pleaded that since the plots had been allotted to the complainants out of discretionary quota in 1981 certain litigation was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and due to the pendency of the same, possession could not be delivered. Now since the writ petitions challenging the allotment of the discretionary quota plots have since been dismissed qua plots allotted prior to 1989, the non-delivery of possession for all this period was justifiable by HUDA. It is further pleaded that during this long period as there was a stay order issued by the Hon'ble High Court, certain encroachers had taken unauthorised possession of the plots and as such it is not possible for HUDA to take back the possession from them. To be precised, exact averment made oath in the affidavit of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad is as under

"As such, the possession cannot be taken back from the encroacher till the final disposal of the case by Hon'ble High Court". It is again reiterated "that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and the possession will be delivered to the complainant after decision of the Court case." "

3. Complainants have produced their documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in their pleadings to prove the various deposits made by them from time to time as also escalation in the cost of construction which they will be now facing after the plots originally allotted or the alternative plots are allotted to them. So far as complaint of Janak Kumar is concerned, he has already deposited a sum of Rs. 55,910/- whereas complainant Jassu Ram had depos