O R D E R (ORAL)

        Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short “HUDA”) is to the order dated 9.12.2009, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in FA/1670/2009.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 1.10.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.51/2009 and has thus, dismissed the Appeal preferred by HUDA against the said order.

2.     In the first place, accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of HUDA in not allotting plot No.112 in Sector-23, Panchkula, admeasuring 10 marlas, under the oustees Schemes, announced by HUDA, in lieu of the acquired lands belonging to the Complainant, on the ground that the Applicant had failed to furnish ‘No objection certificate’ from the other co-owners of the land acquired, the District Forum had directed HUDA not to insist on such ‘No-objection certificate’ and allot the said plot to the Applicant/Complainant or in the alternative allot any other plot as per his entitlement according to the policy of HUDA in the same sector or adjoining sector, at the same price and in the same condition.  The District Forum had, however, clarified that HUDA will be entitled to recover the dues in respect of the plot in question, if any, from the Complainant.

3.     Thus, the short controversy falling for consideration in the case is whether the Forums below were justified in issuing the afore-noted directions to HUDA? 

4.     The issue as to whether each of the co-owners of the land acquired were entitled to allotment of a plot under the Scheme, is no longer res integra.   In Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Anr. vs. Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Etc., by its order dated 24.11.2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, being SLP (C) Nos. 13375-13383/2013, preferred by HUDA against the judgment delivered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, inter alia, holding that each of the co-owners of the acquired land was entitled to allotment of a plot under the Scheme.

5.     In light of the said authoritative pronouncement, no fault can be found with the afore-noted directions issued by the Fora below. 

6.     Resultantly, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.