STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/A/402/2024 RAM BALAK PRESENT ADDRESS - SON OF LATE SH. PHOOL CHAND, AGED ABOUT 72, H. NO. 92-A SECTOR 17, PANCHKULA. ,CHANDIGARH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS ESTATE OFFICER, PHASE-II, URBAN ESTATE, PATIALA.,CHANDIGARH.

PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, OPPOSITE FORTIS HOSPITAL, MOHALI.,CHANDIGARH.

PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, PHASE-II, URBAN ESTATE, PATIALA. ,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

DEVINDER KUMAR (Advocate)

DATED: 10/02/2026

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench

Appeal No.	:	402 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	16.12.2024
Date of Decision	:	10.02.2026

Ram Balak son of Late Sh. Phool Chand, aged about 72 years, H.No.92-A Sector 17, Panchkula --Appellant V e r s u s

1. Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, Phase-II. Urban Estate, Patiala.

2. Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Opposite Fortis Hospital, Mohali.

3. Punjab Urban Development Authority through its Additional Chief Administrator, Phase-

II, Urban Estate, Patiala.

…Respondents Appeal against the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.217/2023.

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER MR.RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER For the appellant : Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate For the respondents : Sh.Ashish Grover, Advocate PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.08.2024, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), whereby consumer complaint (CC/217/2023) filed by the complainant/appellant was dismissed, being not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and liberty was granted to approach the competent Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance.

2. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainant that in the year 2008, through advertisement (Annexure C-1), Opposite Parties had allured the general public about allotment of plots by way of auction at Phulkian Enclave, Patiala with specific date of auction to be held on 27.6.2008. The complainant, being interested in purchasing plot for his personal use and occupation, applied and gave highest bid of 24,88,800/- for plot No.132 measuring 155.55 sq. yards. On payment of 6,22,200/- i.e. 25% of total amount, Opposite Parties issued allotment letter dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure C-4) to the complainant. The Complainant deposited total amount of 23,45,701/- on different dates, as per the payment plan, vide receipts (Annexure C-5 Colly.). It was averred that as per clause 4(i) of the allotment letter, Opposite Parties had undertaken to hand over possession of the subject plot within 90 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Thereafter, complainant vide letter dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure C-6) requested the Opposite Parties to hand over possession of the said plot and vide letter dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure C-7) Opposite Parties had handed over the symbolic possession of the plot to him. However, the Opposite Parties failed to hand over physical possession of the plot to the complainant despite of the fact that the complainant had requested the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure C-8) to hand over physical possession to him. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the plot, which was allotted to him, was under dispute with Smt.Jagmohan Kaur and, therefore, he sent letters dated 9.8.2016 to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, Chief Administrator, Estate Officer, Chief Minster, Punjab and Deputy Chief M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document