Delay of 16 days in filing these Revision Petitions is condoned. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the judgement and order dated 5.12.07 passed by the State Commission, Chandigarh, UT in First Appeal Nos. 262 to 264/05 confirming the order passed by the District Forum, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority has preferred these Revision Petitions. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because it was an auctioned sale of the plots by the Development Authority and, therefore,
..2.. in such cases, it cannot be considered to be a dispute covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is to be stated that the Urban Development Authorities are established all over the Country to see that the lands are developed and sold with appropriate zoning and planning so that the constructions are made as per town planning. Further, similar contention was considered elaborately by the apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta – (1994) Vol.I SCC 243 and after discussing the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the same was rejected. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that there is no encroachment on the land. In our view, finding recorded by both the Fora below does not call for any interference particularly a person who is NRI wanted to settle in his village/town, would not take an undeveloped land or land which is encroached so as to have quarrel all through out with the neighbours. Even before the State Commission, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has admitted that the surrounding area was under encroachment and for that civil litigation was pending. Further, as recorded by the State Commission, in para No.5 of its reply, the Petitioner had admitted that some persons were illegally occupying plot sites. ..3… Considering this finding recorded by the State Commission, it cannot be said that the order passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission directing the Petitioner to refund the deposited amount with reasonable rate of interest, calls for any interference. Hence, these Revision Petitions are dismissed.
......................JM.B. SHAHPRESIDENT
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER | | 
