We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondent/Complainant, who is appearing in person, and perused the impugned order dated 14.10.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1 at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, has been dismissed.

It may be mentioned that the Respondent was allotted a plot in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Housing Scheme, floated by the Petitioners herein.  The entire amount was deposited by the Respondent.  However, the possession of the plot was not given to him.  Lease deed was also not executed, whereupon by filing a Complaint the Respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-IV, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) for redressal of his grievances. 

The District Forum vide order dated 11.05.2016 had allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent, and directed the Petitioners to issue the possession letter in respect of Plot No. 62 allotted to the Respondent in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Housing Scheme (Agra Road), Jaipur; handover physical possession of the plot in question; and issue lease deed in favour of the Complainant, within 60 days, otherwise penalty of ₹1,000/- per day was to be paid.  The District Forum had also directed that if it was not possible to handover the possession of the plot in question within 60 days, then option be taken from the Respondent for taking another plot of the same size and same rate in other Schemes and possession of the said plot be handed over.  Further, the District Forum had awarded a sum of ₹1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and a sum of ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses.

Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred the Appeal before the State Commission.  Before the State Commission, a plea was taken by the Petitioners that another plot has been allotted to the Respondent but still the fact remains that the possession of any plot whatsoever has not been handed over to the Respondent.  The State Commission has recorded a categorical finding that it is not in dispute that a plot had been allotted to the Respondent in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Housing Scheme and requisite amount had also been deposited by the Respondent.  However, possession of the plot had not been handed over and lease deed had not been executed.  Consequently, the State Commission by the impugned order has upheld the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal. 

Still aggrieved with the impugned order, the Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petition. 

We may mention here that during the course of proceedings on 15.01.2018 a statement was made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the then Dy. Commissioner of Jaipur Development Authority, who was present in person, that the Jaipur Development Authority was willing to allot one of the plots in any of the three Schemes, particulars whereof had been furnished by the Respondent to the Authority, provided the Respondent was willing to pay the market price of the said plot.  The Commission after recording the statement so made directed the Petitioners to consider allotting the plot at the maximum rate, for which the plots in the area, where the Petitioners propose to make allotment in favour of the Respondent, were allotted/sold in the year 2008. 

Subsequently, on 01.06.2018, the Petitioners were permitted to file the additional affidavit during the course of the day, which was complied with. 

On 24.09.2018, a statement was given by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners will make necessary allotment of the plot from the details submitted by the Respondent within four weeks.  The Commission had directed that the plot, which will be given to the Respondent, shall be at the same rate, for which the Respondent had made the application in the year 2007.

Reading of the orders dated 15.01.2018 and 24.09.2018 shows that there is a deviation in the price of the plot to be allotted.  While in the order dated 15.01.2018 the market rate, for which the plots in the area were allotted/sold in the year 2008, was to be paid, in the order dated 24.09.2018 the Commission had mentioned that the rate shall be of the year 2007.  We rectify this deviation and make it clear that the maximum rate of the plot will be that of the year 2008.

Today when the matter was taken up, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the statement given by the then Dy. Commissioner of the Jaipur Development Authority on 15.01.2018 was not based on instructions received from any higher authorities and, therefore, cannot bind the Petitioners.  Similarly, he submitted that the statement given by the Learned Counsel on 24.09.2018 was not an authorized statement. 

Be that as it may, in our view, the conduct of the Petitioners was not fair and proper.  Disowning the statement given by the then Dy. Commissioner on 15.01.2018 as also by the Counsel on 24.09.2018 reflects on the way and the manner in which the Petitioners conduct the legal proceedings before various forums.

We deprecate such practice.

Coming to the merits of the matter, we find that it is not in dispute that the Respondent was allotted a plot in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Housing Scheme and the Respondent had paid the entire amount, as demanded by the Petitioners towards the price of the said plot.  If, for any reason, the plot is not available in the said Scheme as per the statement given by the then Dy. Commissioner on 15.01.2018 and the Counsel on 24.09.2018, one of the plots still lying vacant is to be allotted to the Respondent.

Learned Counsel, Mr. Harsha Vinoy, on the basis of instructions received by him from Dr. Praveen Kumar, Dy. Commissioner of the Jaipur Development Authority, who is present in person today, states that even if the plot is available, the same cannot be given at the rate which was prevailing in 2008 and the current market rate should be paid by the Respondent. 

The Respondent, who is appearing in person, has produced before us the information given by the Petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005.  According to the said information, the allotment of the plots in Khusar Vistar Yojana had been made to the existing employees of the State Government as also the Petitioner Authority in the year 2008 @ 50% of the reserved price.

In our considered opinion, the Respondent cannot be saddled with the delay and laches, which has happened at the hands of the Petitioners, and the Respondent cannot be made to pay the prevalent market rate in the year 2019 when he is entitled for allotment of a plot, for which he had applied in the year 2007.

We, therefore, dispose of the present Revision Petition with a direction to the Petitioners to allot one of the plots still lying vacant, out of the three plots, the details of which have already been given to the Petitioners by the Respondent, and the difference of the amount payable by the Respondent shall be the market rate, which was prevalent in the year 2008, in terms of the information given under the Right to Information Act referred to above, and the amount already deposited by the Respondent.  The exercise be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.  The lease deed shall also be executed in the same period.  However, the direction relating to compensation of ₹1,00,000/- and penalty of ₹1,000/- per day shall stand deleted.    

This order shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases.