Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. Complainant/respondent was employed with the Indian Air Force. On 27.03.1981 he got himself registered with the petitioner for allotment of a residential plot in the “Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981’. On retirement, he shifted to 28-C, Pocket-A, Sidhartha Extension, New Delhi and informed the petitioner of the change of his address vide his letter dated 24.03.2004 sent under certificate of posting. According to the respondent, petitioner must have been received that letter in due course because the same was not received back undelivered. On personal
-2- visits by the Complainant and his son, they were told that they would be informed in writing as and when the draw was held; that despite a long wait of 25 years, the complainant did not receive any information from the petitioner in respect of registration; that in August 2005, certain property brokers contacted the complainant claiming and informing him that he had been allotted plot No. 292, Pocket A-1, Sector-30, Rohini and that the allotment was likely to be cancelled because he had failed to make the payment and complete the formalities. Complainant then addressed another letter dated 05.09.2005 and delivered it by hand in the office of the petitioner on 08.09.05 referring to the information received from the property dealers and to his earlier letter for change of address and requesting for information regarding the payments to be made and formalities to be completed by him. Respondent was asked to attend the office on Thursday at 2.30 p.m. along-with proof of application for change of address etc. In response to the said letter son of the complainant appeared before Ms. P.D. Baby, Dy. Director, LSB (Rohini) with the required documents. Petitioner cancelled the allotment of the plot on the ground of non-payment of the final demand-cum-allotment letter which in fact was never served upon the complainant.
-3- Aggrieved by this complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. Petitioner on being served put in appearance and filed its Written Statement contesting the complaint. District Forum allowed the complaint. Since the plot allotted to the petitioner had already been allotted to some other person, petitioner was directed to allot a similar plot to the complainant at the same price on the same terms and conditions and without interest as per the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 02.08.2004-06.08.2004. No compensation was awarded due to escalation in the price of the plot. Rs.5000/- were awarded as costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed. State Commission after narrating the facts without recording either the submissions of the counsel for the parties or adjudicating upon them dismissed the appeal by making general observations with respect to some earlier decisions (without specifying them). State Commission being the final court of facts and law is required to note the submissions made by the parties and pass a reasoned and intelligible order. State Commission in the present case has not recorded any finding either on
-4- facts or on law. Order of the State Commission is a non-speaking order inasmuch as it has not recorded any reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at except some general observations based on unspecified cases. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.07.2012. Since it is an old case we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of appearance. Revision petition stands disposed of. | 
