NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2599/2010

HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

LT. COL. K. C. KATOCH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. Y. PRABHAKARA RAO

23 Nov 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2599 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 09/04/2010 in Appeal No. 249/2009 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)

1. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Through its Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary), Nigam Vihar Shimla - 171002 Himachal Pradesh	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. LT. COL. K. C. KATOCH R/o. HIG-6, H.P. Housing Colony, Knagra, Distt. & Tehsil Kangra Kangra Himachal Pradesh	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

MR. Y. P. RAO, ADVOCATE

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 23 Nov 2010

ORDER

PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. There are concurrent findings of two fora below. Even though initially the plots were offered on 10.9.1993 @ Rs.800/- per sq. mtr. tentatively, yet on 23.2.2005 the Petitioner had allotted additional land admeasuring 24.50 sq. mtr. to the Complainant @ Rs.343 per sq. mtr. However, vide letter dated 26.5.2006 the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.1804/- per sq. mtr. for additional land admeasuring 104sq. mtr. The Petitioner has not been able to show any justification for charging Rs.1804/- per sq. mtr. whereas on 23.2.2005 in respect of the same land, the petitioner had charged @ Rs.349/- per sq. mtr. Taking all these facts into consideration, the fora below have ordered the petitioner to charge for the said area of 104 sq. mtr. @ Rs.800/- per sq. mtr. ,which, in our opinion, is just fair and equitable, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the orders of fora below, do not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

......................J

R.K. BATTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER