The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has quashed GMADA’s cancellation of a 300-sq-yard plot allotted to a senior citizen who died before receiving the letter of intent and directed the authority to allot the plot to his legal heirs at the original price.
The consumer commission passed the order on a complaint filed by Naresh Kumar and Ashok Kumar, legal heirs of Noba Ram of Abohar. After his death, his sons approached GMADA and applied to transfer the allotment in their names. GMADA argued that Noba Ram had failed to submit duly self-attested documents required to establish his eligibility under the senior citizen category. The commission comprising president SK Aggrawal and it’s members Paramjeet Kaur and Lt Col JS Bath (retd) held that GMADA could not cancel the allotment after more than a year on the alleged document deficiency.
Noba Ram had applied for a 300-sq-yard category-A plot under the senior citizen category in Eco City-2, New Chandigarh, and deposited ₹ 7 lakh, 10% of the ₹ 75 lakh sale consideration. He was declared successful in the draw of lots held on February 22, 2021. GMADA was to dispatch the letter of intent to successful applicants by March 31, 2021, according to the scheme brochure. Noba Ram died on July 12, 2021. However, the estate officer cancelled the application on November 17, 2022, citing failure to submit certain compulsory documents with self-attestation. GMADA also deducted ₹ 75,000 from the deposited amount and ordered a refund of ₹ 7 lakh. It also claimed that a letter dated July 20, 2021, had been sent to him seeking the documents. The commission noted that GMADA did not produce a copy of the July 20 communication and that Noba Ram had already died by then. It quashed the cancellation order and directed GMADA to allot and deliver the 300-sq-yard plot to the complainants after receiving the balance sale consideration at the original rate. It also ordered GMADA to pay ₹ 1 lakh as compensation, including litigation expenses, within two months.
They also told the authority that they were ready to pay the remaining amount as required under the scheme.
The family challenged the cancellation before the commission, arguing that GMADA cancelled the allotment more than a year later without issuing a show-cause notice or giving them an opportunity to rectify the alleged deficiency. It also observed that he had been declared successful in the draw, which showed that his application had not been rejected at the earlier stage.
