PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

            Aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2012 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State

-2-

Commission’), Lucknow in First Appeal No. 122 of 2011, the Meerut Development Authority has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner-Development Authority against the order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Meerut in complaint case No. 124 of 2010.  By the said order the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant in the following manner:

          “Complaint of complainant is allowed against Opposite Party.  The cancellation order of the said plot of land issued by Opposite Party is set aside.  Opposite Party are ordered that they execute sale deed of the B-1 category Plot No. B-3 area 250 sq. meter located in Sector-5, Shatabadi Nagar, Meerut in favour of the complainant on previous rates within the period of one month from this order or having allotted plot in a developed sector of any other Housing Scheme at the previous rates, execute sale deed in favour of complainant and hand over physical possession of this plot to complainant.  Opposite party to pay interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum on the amount lying deposited by complainant on different dates from the date of deposits till the full and final payment of the same, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the complaint to complainant.  Opposite party to ensure compliance of this order within the prescribed period otherwise complainant would be free to initiate proceedings under section 25/27 C.P. Act, 1986 against Opposite Party.”

2.      Several pleas were raised by the appellant-Authority against the impugned order justifying the cancellation of the allotment of the plot due to default of the complainant-allottee  in  paying   the   subsequent

-3-

installments.  It was contended that the final notice dated 24.7.2006 was issued to complainant calling upon her to clear the arrears of the installments, failing which the allotment shall automatically stand cancelled.  Despite that notice, the complainant failed to deposit the amount and therefore the plot will be deemed to have been cancelled.  The State Commission repelled the said pleas on different reasoning and dismissed the appeal also in particular taking cognizance of one time settlement (OTS) reached between the parties in the year 2009.  Pursuant to which the complainant had deposited several amounts in the year 2009, despite making payment of Rs. 3,62,455/- in all against the original price of Rs. 1,12,540/- for the plot in question.  The petitioner-authority did not restore the plot to the complainant and handed over its possession.  The District Forum has given the following reasons for not accepting the plea of the petitioner-Development Authority:

          “While rebutting the contentions put forth by appellant / opposite party, learned counsel for respondent/complainant Shri Satya Prakash Pandey submitted that complainant came to know through the letter issued by Authority that her plot would be cancelled, in such situation, complainant obtained O.T.S. and had deposited the full and final amount with appellant / opposite party, the confirmation of the same is available on record.  It proves from the photocopy of the receipt of depositing the amount filed on behalf of complainant.  Shri Satya Prakash Pandey further submitted that since the year 1992 complainant kept on visiting the office of opposite party continuously, but Authority did not get the sale deed of plot of land registered

-4-

in favour of the complainant and nor possession was handed over to her.  Complainant had deposited full and final amount having obtained O.T.S., in such situation, Authority should have handed over possession of plot of land having registered sale deed in favour of complainant when they had received the full and final amount of the price of allotted plot of land and there is no any justifiability of cancellation of allotment of plot vide letter dated 05.9.2006 and then saying that the allotment of plot would be restored only on full and final payment of the current price of the allotted plot.  Authority sent wrong letters to complainant with the intentions to harass complainant intentionally.  Learned counsel for respondent-complainant has strongly submitted that raising demand of current price of plot by Authority is not justifiable after receiving full and final amount.  In such circumstances, Authority should ensure handing over possession getting executed registered sale deed of plot on the old rates itself.  While showing the page no. 27 of Annexure No.11 available on record, Shri Satya Prakash Pandey submitted that Authority have raised demand of amount about the current rates with intentions to harass complainant.  Shri Satya Prakash Pandey prayed that respondent-complainant happens to be a 80 years old senior citizen.  Authority be ordered, in the interest of justice that they ensure compliance of the judgment and order passed by the District Forum at once.

            Heard Shri..…………., we arrive at the conclusion that if complainant-respondent has deposited amount with Authority about the allotment of plot and if any amount is outstanding to be paid and Authority have not handed over possession of plot of land to her in time, in such situation, Authority cannot forfeit the amount deposited by respondent/complainant and respondent/complainant is entitled to get the plot from Authority.  In the similar type of cases in Appeal No. 2158/2010 Meerut Development Authority versus Shri Mahindra Kumar Maheshwari Hon’ble State Commission passed judgment dated 12.5.2011and in Appeal No. 1063/2010 Meerut Development Authority Versus Mukesh Kumar Gupta judgment dated 22.7.2011 and the judicial citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 446, Haryana Urban Development Authority versus Vijay Aggarwal has been filed.”

-5-

3.      We have heard Mr. M.P. Shorawala, learned counsel for the petitioner-Development Authority and have considered his submissions.  He reiterated the same pleas, which were submitted in support of the appeal before the State Commission challenging the order of the District Forum.  According to the learned counsel, the petitioner-authority was justified in canceling the allotment plot, which was mainly due to the default of the respondent-complainant in making the payment of the due installment as per the schedule or even during the grace period granted to the respondent-complainant.  It is however, not denied that the respondent-complainant had in fact deposited certain amounts with the petitioner-authority during 2009 pursuant to an OTS scheme floated by the petitioner-authority. 

4.      Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that even if this Commission holds that the allotment of the plot was revived pursuant to the payment of the said amount; there was no case for the District Forum to award interest @ 15% per annum on the amount lying in deposit with the petitioner-Authority.  In our view once, it is established that the respondent-complainant was in default of payment of the installments and the respondent-complainant had deposited the said amount of Rs. 3,62,455/- pursuant to the OTS, which was a condition for revival of the plot, there was no case for award of any interest to the

-6-

respondent-complainant.  The order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission in that regard is liable to be set aside / modified.

5.      In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission is modified to the extent that the direction in regard to the payment of interest @ 15% per annum on the amount lying deposited by the complainant on different dates from the date of deposit is set aside.  Other stipulations given in the order of the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission shall remain unchanged.  We direct the petitioner-Development Authority to execute the conveyance deed to transfer B-1 category, Plot No. B-3 area 250 sq. Meter located in Sector-5, Shatabadi Nagar, Meerut in favour of the respondent-complainant and to hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.