PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the common order dated 10.08.2007 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in appeal Nos. 614 of 2004, 615 of 2004 616 of 2004, 617 of 2004, 1922 of 2003 and 1923 of 2003, the Lucknow Development Authority has filed the present petitions purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeals before the State Commission were also filed by the present petitioner-Authority against the order dated 18.02.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Second, Lucknow in complaint No. 936 of 2000 titled as Iqtidar Ahmad Vs. Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority, complaint No. 935 of 2000 titled as Altaf Ahmad Versus Secretary, LDA, order dated 04.6.2003 in complaint No. 9 of 2000 titled as Mahboob Ali Vs. Secretary, LDA, Lucknow, order dated 04.6.2003 in complaint No. 7 of 2000 titled as Kripal Singh Vs. Secretary, LDA, order dated 04.6.2003 in complaint No. 8 of 2000 titled as Mohammad Haseer Vs. Secretary, LDA and order dated 04.6.2003 in complaint No. 1242 of 2000 titled as Sardar Baldev Singh Vs. Secretary, LDA, Lucknow. By these orders, the District Forum had allowed the -4- complaints of the complainants and given the following directions to the opposite party-Lucknow Development Authority in complaint No. 935 of 2000: “The complaint of the complaint is accepted. The opposite party is ordered to inform the complainant within one month that as regard to registration and possession of plot no. 91 Priydarshani Scheme, Sector-C, Pragati Vihar (Sitapur Road), Lucknow, what formalities are left and how much remaining amount has to be deposited by the complainant. The complainant should complete all the formalities as asked by the opposite party within 15 days of its providing such information to the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite party should execute the registration and give the possession of the plot within 15 days to the complainant. Otherwise, the opposite party shall pay 9% interest per annum on all the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of such deposit along with Rs. 100/- per day as damage to the complainant till the date of possession. The opposite party should also pay Rs. 1000/- to the opposite party towards the costs.” Similar directions were also given in other complaints. 2. The State Commission partly allowed the appeals filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and directed the LDA to furnish within 15 days from the receipt of this order, the necessary details showing as to what were the necessary formalities to be complied with and also the details of outstanding sums to be paid by each of the complainants-respondents with a further stipulation that in the event of furnishing the details by the appellants, it will be obligation of the complainants to deposit the necessary sums within three months and on -5- receipt of the amount of the outstanding sum, the appellant shall execute sale deed forth with and will hand over the possession of the plot in question. Aggrieved by the said findings and orders, the LDA has approached this Commission. 3. In nut shell the common facts of these cases are that alleging deficiency in service on the party of the opposite party-LDA, the complainants had filed complaints seeking the execution of the sale deeds and possession of the respective plots alleging that despite the allotment of the plot to them in Priydarshani Scheme, Sector-C, Pragati Vihar (Sitapur Road), Lucknow as far back as in the year 1992 and deposit of the consideration, the LDA failed to deliver the plots and to execute the sale deeds thereof. The complaints were resisted by the LDA thereby inter-alia on the ground that the complainants had failed to produce any documents in support of their plea about the allotment of the respective plots in question and that they had deposited any amount with the LDA and therefore, there was no question of allotment of any plots to them and the authority cannot be said to have committed any deficiency. It would appear that prior to disposal of the said complaints in these cases, the said District Forum had decided another complaint titled as Chandbabu Versus Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority Lucknow dated 01.11.2001, by which order the said District -6- Forum had directed the LDA to allot the plot No. 98 in the said scheme to the complainant Chandbabu. That order was pressed in service from the side of the complainants of these cases and going by the said decision in the case of Chandbabu Vs. Vice Chairman, LDA, the District Forum allowed the present complaints. Counsel for the petitioner, under instructions of the petitioner, states that the order dated 01.11.2001 passed by the District Forum is under challenge by way of appeal No. 1728 of 2006 before the State Commission. 4. Since a very fundamental question surfaced in these cases is as to whether the complainants were in fact issued any allotment letters allotting them different plots as claimed by the complainants and / or the complainants deposited any amounts with the LDA as cost of the plot / lease money, we called upon the LDA to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances relating to these cases. Pursuant to the said direction, affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Sinha, Additional Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority has been filed. In para-2 of the said affidavit the concerned officer has deposed as under: “2. That in compliance of the order dated 11.7.2012, the affidavit of the petitioner herein relating to the aforesaid cases are as follows: (i) That in the year 1987, there were 80 allotments were made by the LDA in Pragati Vihar Sector-C under Priya Darshini Yojna (Sitapur Road) and the records relating to allotments were available in the Lucknow Development Authority. However, the -7- allotment letters in the names of the aforesaid respondents were not recorded, therefore, a secret enquiry was conducted by the LDA and it was found that the allotment letters which were shown by the respondents herein were not issued by the office of the LDA. The complainants / respondents herein were informed by the LDA that they should contact in the office along with the original papers but they never turned up along with the original papers. Thereafter on 27.10.2007, an FIR was lodged against aforesaid complainants / respondents herein; (ii) That as far as the Chand Babu case is concerned, Chand Babu filed a complaint No. 49 of 99, before the District Consumer Forum, and in compliance of the order dated 7.11.2002, Secretary of the LDA on 26.09.2002 directed to allot a plot No. 9/49, in Transport Nagar Yojna. Chand Babu deposited a sum of Rs. 2,700/- vide challan receipt No. 8301, dated 11.4.1989 to the LDA. However, on bare perusal it seems to be a forged receipt, therefore, an enquiry was conducted and it was found by the Uco bank of L.D.A., that the amount deposited by Chand Babu is actually not deposited in the LDA, account. Therefore, against the order dated 07.11.2002, of District Consumer Forum, an appeal was filed before the State Commission that is still pending. 3. That the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge derived from the original record.” 4. We have carefully considered the said statement and have heard Mr. S.A. Saud, learned counsel for the petitioner-Authority and have considered his submissions. However, we did not have the advantage of hearing the say of the respondents-complainants in these cases as no-one appeared at the time of hearing of the petitions. One of the -8- grounds on which the impugned common order is sought to be assailed by the counsel for the petitioner is that the complaints in these cases were decided by the District Forum largely based on its order dated 01.11.2001 in the case of Chand Babu Versus Vice Chairman, LDA and since the said order itself is under challenge before the State Commission by way of appeal, the appeals filed by the LDA in these cases ought to have been clubbed with the said appeal No. 1728 of 2006 and the appeal should have been answered together. We find merits in this contention because once the findings and orders made by the District Forum in the case of Chand Babu (supra) which was the basis of passing the orders in these cases is under challenge, then the said order cannot be said to have attained finality. Even otherwise, if at a distant date the appeal filed by the LDA against the said order is allowed, it would be almost impossible to uphold the orders passed by the District Forum in these cases. 5. That apart, we notice that the controversy involved in these cases is not as simple as has been taken by the District Forum and the State Commission because the factum of very allotment of any plots to the complainants or receipt of any amount is totally denied by the LDA. Not only this, it is alleged that the copies of the allotment letters produced by the complainants in support of their plea are forged one and therefore, -9- the complainants were called upon to produce the original allotment letters but they failed to produce the same and therefore, an FIR was lodged. Going by the nature and extent of gamut of controversy and for the above reasons, we are of the view that the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and must be set aside. 6. In the result the revision petitions are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the petitioner herein are remanded back to the State Commission for deciding the appeals along with Appeal No. 1728 of 2006 Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority Versus Chand Babu as early as it may be practicable by taking into account all the relevant factors and pleas put forth by the parties. We order accordingly. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.09.2012. | 
