1.       Delay condoned.

2.       By these two Revision Petitions, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board (for short “the Development Board”) calls in question the correctness and legality of a common order dated 02.03.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. A/15/175-176.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed two identical orders, both dated 31.12.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal at Nagpur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 20 and 77 of 2014.  By the said orders, the District Forum, while partly accepting the Complaints, had, inter alia, directed the Development Board to charge the cost of additional land from the Complainants as per the ready reckoner rate as on 29.12.1998/22.12.1998 and on Complainants making payment of the said amount alongwith stamp duty, as on 02.09.2008/30.08.2008, execute the sale deeds in their favour.

3.       Since the question of law as well as the facts are identical in both the Revision Petitions, these are being disposed of by this common order.

4.       The dispute, subject matter of the present Revision Petitions, arises under the following circumstances:

Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Development Board on 14.05.1995, launching a Residential Scheme, the Complainants were allotted plots, admeasuring 100 sq. meters, at the total sale consideration of ₹2,56,100/-.  However, realising that being corner plots, some additional land, adjacent to the plots allotted to the Complainants, was available, the Complainants were directed to pay additional amounts as cost of the additional land appurtenant to the allotted plots.  Accordingly, Complainant Harivitthal Timaji Ghuguskar deposited additional sum of ₹26,331/- and the second Complainant, namely Jaiprakash Narayan Zirmire, paid a sum of ₹26,100/- vide their letters dated 09.12.1998 and 11.08.1998 respectively.  The possession of the entire piece of land, including the additional land, was delivered to them on 28.12.1998 and 22.12.1998 respectively.

5.       According to the Complainants, since the Development Board was not executing the sale deeds/lease deeds in their favour, despite several requests, they approached the Development Board for necessary action in that behalf.  However, in the year 2013, the Development asked the Complainants to deposit further sums of ₹5,01,840/- and ₹8,50,601/- respectively towards the price of additional land, of which the possession was delivered to them in the year 1998.  Aggrieved by the said demand, the Complainants, after lodging their protest in writing, filed the Complaints before the District Forum, questioning the legality of the said additional demand.  In nutshell, their case was that since the possession of the entire piece of land, which included additional land, had been delivered to them as far back as in the year 1998, on payment of additional amount as consideration for the extra land, further demand towards the price for the additional land, on the basis of ready reckoner rate for the year 2011, was wholly unjustified.    

6.       As noted above, taking into consideration the material placed before it by both the parties, the District Forum allowed the Complaints and issued the afore-noted directions.

7.       Being aggrieved, the Development Board took the matter in Appeals before the State Commission. 

8.       Rejecting the plea raised on behalf of the Development Board that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to go into the question of pricing of the land, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, observing thus:

”6.      We have thus considered submissions of both the parties and their counsels.  Admittedly the advertisement given by the appellant shows that if the land is allotted in excess, the price of the said additional land will have to be paid as per rules of the Corporation before possession of the tenement is taken by the allottee.  Thus, the said condition itself is sufficient to show that the appellant is entitled to additional price of the land if it is found subsequently that the land is allotted in excess.  Admittedly, in both the instant complaints additional land of about 100 sq. mt. has been allotted in excess to each of the complainant and, therefore, the Forum has rightly held that they are liable to pay additional amount towards the price of said excess land.

8.       The aforesaid condition published in the public advertisement shows that the price of the additional land is required to be paid before giving possession of the tenament by the allottee.  It, therefore, presupposes that the price of the said additional land as on the date of possession is required to be paid by the respective allottee.  The Forum has on the basis of the same has directed the complainants to pay price of that additional land as per Government Ready Reckoner rate applicable on the respective date of giving of possession of the tenament to them.  The complainants/respondents herein are not party to the writ petition referred to by the learned advocate of the appellant.  In that writ petition also Hon’ble High Court has directed that the petitioner should pay the price of the extra land as per Government Ready Reckoner rate applicable in 1998-1999.”

9.       Hence, the present Revision Petitions.  

10.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Development Board has assailed the orders passed by the Fora below mainly on three grounds, viz., (i) the Complaints were barred by limitation; (ii) the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not have the jurisdiction to go into the question of pricing of the land; and (iii) the Complainants were not ‘consumers’ as the Development Board had not rendered any service to them.

11.     We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with any one of the contentions urged on behalf of the Development Board.

12.     Insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, admittedly, no such plea was raised in the Written Version filed on behalf of the Development Board, in opposition to the Complaints.  In our view, entertaining such a plea, though legal, at this stage, would cause serious prejudice to the Complainants, inasmuch as even if it was assumed for the sake of argument that the Complaints were filed beyond the period of limitation, the Complainants could have availed of the benefit of proviso to Section 24A (2) of the Act, which may not be permissible at this stage.  Even otherwise, the challenge of the Complaints being to the letters dated 23.12.2013, demanding the aforesaid additional amount, as a pre-condition for execution of sale deed, the Complaints were well within the period of limitation prescribed under the said Section.

13.     As regards the submission that being a policy matter, the Consumer Forums do not have the jurisdiction to go into the question of pricing, suffice it to note that in the present cases, as such the question of pricing of the land or of tenament does not arise.  The short issue is whether, having delivered the possession of the properties in question to the Complainants as far back as in the year 1998 and their paying extra amount for the excess area, as demanded and then putting them in possession, the Development Board could raise additional demand after a lapse of almost 16 years, on the basis of the Ready Reckoner rate for the year 2011.  We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel that the said demand was raised because of a policy decision taken in the year 2007.  We are in agreement with the Fora below that receipt of the total consideration of the plots, including the additional area, was a pre-requisite for delivery of possession to the allottees under the Scheme launched in the year 1995.  We do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting inference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction. 

14.     Coming to the question as to whether the Complainants were ‘consumers’ vis-à-vis the Development Authority, in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243, a locus classicus on the issue, the contention is stated to be rejected.        

15.     In view of the afore-going, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference.  Resultantly, the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine.