The court established that under the Consumer Protection Act, petitioners are entitled to an alternative plot when the originally allotted plot is unfit for habitation and the HUDA policies support such exchange due to litigation.

1. The Revision Petition No. 2046 of 2011, under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), was preferred by the Petitioners / Complainants, against the Order dated 17.1.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 1418/2005 whereby the State Commission had allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondents, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, the HUDA) and set aside the order dated 6.6.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short the District Forum).

2. Succinctly put, the material facts relevant for disposal of the Miscellaneous Application No. 239 of 2020 and I. A. No. 58 of 2021 are that on 8.3.1973, the HUDA had allotted a residential unit being Plot No. 619 admeasuring 500 sq. yards in Sector 21 - B, Faridabad to one, Mrs. Parkash Kumar for a tentative price of 22,000. On death of the original allottee, the Plot was transferred in the name of her husband, Raj Kumar on 21.12.2003. Subsequently, the Plot was transferred by the HUDA in the name of the Complainants on 19.4.2005 vide Sale Deed No. 769. It is alleged that though the possession letter was issued on 15.10.1974 but the Petitioners were made to run from pillar to post seeking physical possession of the plot with all basic amenities. There was no proper sewerage and the villagers were using the allotted plot for throwing the cow dung etc. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners filed Consumer Complaint No. 200 of 2005 before the District Forum seeking possession of any similarly placed plot along with compensation.

3. On appraisal of the facts of the case, the District Forum, vide Order dated 6.6.2005, allowed the Complaint directing the HUDA to allot the Plot No. 9 in Sector - 46, Faridabad in lieu of the originally allotted plot and to hand over possession of the same immediately along with interest, compensation and adjustment of the value of the difference of area, if any.

4. HUDA challenged the Order, dated 6.6.2005 passed by the District Forum before the State Commission by filing the First Appeal No. 1418 of 2005, on the ground that physical possession of the allotted Plot was delivered to the original Allottee on 15.10.1979 without any objection.

5. Having considered the material available on record and on perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties, the State Commission, vide Order dated 17.1.2011 allowed the Appeal filed by the HUDA and set aside the order passed by the District Forum observing as under:
Once the possession stood delivered to the Original Allottee without any objection, the contention by present Complainant that the construction could not be carried out as the plot is being used by the villagers for putting cow dung etc. cannot be accepted, as complainant had purchased the plot from the original Allottee with eyes wide open and after having inspecting this site.

6. Dis - satisfied with the aforesaid order, Petitioners / Complainants filed Revision Petition No. 2046 of 2011 before this Commission. However, by order dated 12.3.2013, the Revision Petition was dismissed as withdrawn as under:
Counsel for Petitioner wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the appropriate Forum.
In view of the statement given by Counsel for the petitioner, petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.

7. Now, the Petitioners / Complainants have filed Miscellaneous Application No. 239 of 2020 before this Commission on the