None appears for the appellant. Counsel for the respondent is present. However, since written submission is filed by the appellant, we are inclined to  dispose of the case as it is a matter of 2009.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant wanted to purchase a plot from the opposite party being attracted with the advertisement of the opposite party. The complainant and the opposite party executed an agreement on 18.6.2005 for choicable plot vide serial no. 1903, measuring an area of 30’ x 40’ total 1200 sqft. It was also agreed between the parties that the cost of one plot is Rs. 35000/-. The complainant has deposited Rs. 250/- towards membership charges. He also deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the shape of cash for one plot on 23.9.05. The complainant also paid the instalment amount regularly as agreed in the agreement. The complainant after payment of the total amount requested the O.P. for execution of the sale deed, but the O.P. avoided to execute the registered sale deed. Finally, when the complainant contacted the O.P. for execution and registration of sale deed, the O.P. deferred the matter. The complainant finding no other alternative has filed the complaint case against the opposite party.

4.      The O.P. filed written version stating that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case. It is also stated that the land in question comprises the agricultural land  and the same cannot be fragmented for selling.

5.        After hearing the parties, learned District Forum has passed the following order:-

                        xxxxx                  xxxxx

            “ Thus, the complaint is allowed in part on contest in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. Since the amount paid by the complainant for availing a plot and the escalation price of plots in estate business are very high with good returns and the Apex Court’s decision to provide plot or to pay the deposited amount, we accordingly direct the O.P. to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 35,250/- ( Rupees Thirty Five Thousand and two hundred fifty ) only to the complainant with compensatory interest @18% per annum from respective date of deposit till its refund within forty five days of receipt of this order. The O.P. is further directed to pay cost of the litigation of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only to the complainant.”

                      xxxx          xxxx

6.        Learned counsel for the appellant filed written version wherein it is clearly held that the opposite party has not executed the registered sale deed for the reason that for such matter, the opposite parties are facing cases under the Criminal Law being investigated. Moreover, he submitted that the complainant is facing cases before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also. Moreover, the complainant is facing  OPID Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, C.T.O. and Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide W.P.(C) Nos. 35485/2020, 35486/2020 and 35490 of 2020 for the issues related to the plot in question. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order.

7.        Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the plea taken by the appellant is totally untenabale. It is submitted that in spite of payment of the entire money in respect of the plots, neither the plots nor the money has been returned to the complainant and similarly situated persons. Therefore, the impugned order is correct and legal.

8.        Considered the submissions, perused the D.F.R. and the impugned order. It is admitted fact that one plot was booked by the complainant and he paid Rs. 35,250/- for execution of the sale deed by the opposite party. It is not in dispute that the opposite party did not take any steps for execution of the sale deed nor handed over the possession of the plot. The only plea taken by the opposite party is that since the plot belong to agricultural land, the same cannot be transferred due to restriction, but there is no such restriction proved by the opposite party-appellant. Moreover, the involvement of O.P. in criminal case or OPID case cannot be a ground to deny the amount claimed by the complainant.   However, we are of the view that deficiency in service on the part of opposite party has been proved by the complainant. Therefore, we confirmed the impugned order.

9.        Therefore, the finding of the learned District Forum is correct. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.  Hence, there is no merit in appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.