PALAMPUR
Er. Varun Sharma,
Bureau Chief

<a href=”https://beta.publishers.adsterra.com/referral/3PKxJMrmXm” rel=”nofollow”>Referral link</a>

 

Landmark Verdict Against HIMUDA: State Commission Upholds Residents’ Rights

In a pivotal decision, the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Shimla, has delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Resident Welfare Society, Palampur vs. HIMUDA. The Commission ruled against HIMUDA’s unauthorized revision of the layout plan for a residential colony, setting a significant precedent for consumer rights.

HIMUDA had originally sold 72 plots to the petitioners between 2003-2004, with specific provisions for community facilities and parking areas. However, in 2023, HIMUDA approved a new layout plan that reduced the designated area for a community center to a mere 720 square meters and initiated construction of new flats on the same site.

This controversial revision sparked outrage among the plot owners, who viewed it as a blatant violation of the original agreement. Represented by Palampur-based advocate Aditya Sood, the petitioners challenged the revised plan before the State Commission in an execution appeal.

The State Commission, in its ruling, unequivocally held that HIMUDA’s revised layout plan dated January 24, 2023, could not be considered valid. The Commission noted that the revised plan was prepared after the orders of both the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission had attained finality, rendering the modifications legally untenable.

HIMUDA was directed to comply with the original order dated November 30, 2017, within 45 days. This order emphasized restoring the layout to its initially approved plan, upholding the commitment made to the petitioners.

The judgment underscores the accountability of public bodies like HIMUDA to honor their commitments and act within the bounds of the law. Residents hailed the decision as a victory for consumer rights and transparency, expressing relief at the restoration of their rightful community space.

This case sets a strong precedent for ensuring that administrative authorities cannot unilaterally alter agreements to the detriment of residents, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in protecting citizens’ interests.