IMPORTANT POINT
State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint after expiry of prescribed period of limitation.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The Appellant No.1-Smt. Rita Mehra applied to Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (in short ‘PUDA’), predecessor in interest of the respondent Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (in short ‘GMADA’) for allotment of a residential plot, vide application dated 25.08.1969 and deposited earnest money amounting to Rs.975/-. She was registered vide registration No.R-2889/500. Pursuant to a scheme of PUDA, vide application dated 22.6.1994 she applied for transfer of the said registration in favour of appellant No.2, Smt. Kuljit Kaur and also deposited a sum of Rs.500/- as transfer fee. Two bank drafts, one dated 17.6.1994 for Rs.50,000/- and other dated 21.06.1994 for Rs.9,500/- were also enclosed to the said application towards enhanced earnest money.

2. PUDA received yet another application, seeking transfer of the aforesaid registration from appellant No.1-Smt. Rita Mehra to one Smt. Mohinder Kaur. The case of the appellants is that the aforesaid application was not a genuine application and the signatures of appellant No.1 were forged on it. Acting on the aforesaid application, the registration was transferred by PUDA in the name of Smt. Mohinder Kaur.

3. Vide public notice dated 25.07.1995, PUDA decided to hold a draw of lots on 01.8.1995 for allotment of vacant residential plots. It was clarified in the public notice that only those old applicants would be included in the draw of lots, who had completed 10% earnest money by 29.07.1994 and the remaining applicants, including those whose applications were under transfer from one name to another name, would be considered in the next draw of lots. It was also stated in the said notice that adequate number of plots had been kept reserved for eligible applicants. The draw of lots was accordingly held on 01.8.1995, but neither name of appellant No.1-Smt. Rita Mehra and nor that of appellant No.2-Smt. Kuljit Kaur was included in the draw.

4. Smt. Mohinder Kaur filed a civil suit against PUDA, alleging therein that one property dealer, in connivance with two employees of PUDA, had received a sum of Rs.73,000/- from her and informed her that a registration number had been allotted to her. She was then asked to deposit a sum of Rs.59,025/- in the name of PUDA, which she deposited by way of a bank draft. In the civil suit, she sought to recover the aforesaid amount, along with interest thereon. Thus, in the aforesaid civil suit she clearly admitted that Smt. Rita Mehra had not transferred the registration in her favour and it were the officials of the PUDA, who in connivance with a property dealer had got the said registration transferred in her favour. Written Statement in the aforesaid civil suit was filed by the PUDA on 14.11.1998. It was stated in the written statement that Smt. Mohinder Kaur had been informed, vide letter dated 22.6.1994 that registration No. 2889 had been transferred in her name. Deposit of Rs.59,025/- by her was admitted, but it was stated that the draft deposited by her was not encashed on account of pendency of criminal case. Deposit of Rs.50,000/- by Smt. Rita Mehra by way of bank draft dated 17.6.1994 and deposit of Rs.9,500/- by way of bank draft dated 21.6.1994 was also admitted. It was however, claimed that aforesaid drafts were also not encashed.

5. The appellant No.1 came to know that another draw of lots was scheduled to be held on 07.6.2000. She sent a legal notice to the respondent, requesting it to include her name in the said draw. However, her name was not included in the draw held on 07.6.2000. The transfer of registration in favour of Smt. Mohinder Kaur came to be cancelled on 10.7.2000.

6. Despite having cancelled the transfer of registration in her favour, the respondent vide letter dated 02.3.2001, sought option from her to include her name in a draw of lots to be held in near future. The appellant No.2-Kuljit Kaur also made a representation to the respondent on 11.4.2002, claiming to be her attorney and