Complainant/petitioner got his name registered for allotment of a plot on 19.10.1972.  In response to the respondent Housing Board’s letter dated 20.08.1976, petitioner deposited Rs.1500/- on 06.09.1976.  In the year 1976, the estimated cost of the land was Rs.15,000/-.  The plot was not allotted to the petitioner.  Being aggrieved petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

-2-

          District Forum vide its order dated 17.08.2001 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to allot a plot to the petitioner along with Rs.2500/- towards compensation and costs.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, respondent Housing Board filed First Appeal No.284/2002 before Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi which was dismissed on 20.09.2002.

          Respondent, thereafter, filed a revision petition before this Commission which was also dismissed.

          Order passed by the District Forum upheld upto this Commission attained finality.  As the order was not complied with, petitioner filed execution petition before the District Forum. 

During the pendency of the execution petition, respondent Housing Board allotted a plot to the petitioner on 10.12.2009.  District Forum disposed of the execution petition directing the respondent to receive the price of the allotted plot at the rate which was prevailing on the date of passing of the order i.e. 17.08.2001.

Respondent being aggrieved filed the revision petition before the State Commission.   The State Commission accepting the

-3-

submission made by the counsel for the respondent that the District Forum had acted beyond its jurisdiction in fixing the price of the plot  at the rate prevailing as on 17.08.2001,  allowed the revision petition in part.  The direction given to the respondent to charge the price prevailing on 17.08.2001 was set aside.  Rest of the order of the District Forum was upheld.  The State Commission did not specify the price which the respondent could charge from the petitioner.

Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition.

Petitioner, who is appearing in person, contends that since the District Forum in the order passed in the complaint, did not fix the price, the price prevailing on the date of passing of the order would be relevant for fixing the price of the plot.

We agree with the submission made by the petitioner.  Since the District Forum did not fix the price, the price prevailing on the date of the passing of the order would be relevant the date for fixing the price of the plot.  The District Forum passed the order directing the respondent to allot the plot on 17.08.2001.  This order was upheld upto the National Commission.  Petitioner had applied for the plot in

-4-

the year 1972.  He had paid Rs.1500/- on 20.08.1976 as part payment of the total consideration amount.  District Forum at the time of passing of the order could have directed the petitioner to pay the price which was prevailing on the date on which the petitioner applied for allotment of the plot.  But since price was not fixed by the District Forum while disposing of the compalint, the District Forum directed that the price prevailing on the date of order of District Forum would be relevant date for fixing the price of the plot.   The District Forum did not travel beyond its jurisdiction in fixing the price prevailing of the date of passing of the order by the District Forum.  The State Commission has clearly erred in observing that the District Forum had traveled beyond its jurisdiction in fixing the price on the prevailing rate on date of passing of the order.

          Moreover, the State Commission has not given any direction as to what price has to be paid.  The order of the State Commission is totally vague in this respect.

For the reasons stated above, we allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore that of the

-5-

District Forum.