- Aggrieved by the findings and Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow (for short, the State Commission), the Complainant – Sudarshan Kumar filed the present Revision Petition No. 3191 of 2014 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The Complaint filed by the Complainant – Petitioner in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum) was allowed and the Opposite Party / Respondent was directed to restore the allotment of the plot at the old rate without charging any interest and carry out development work on the plot of land after recovering the free hold charges from the Complainant and further to pay interest @ 12 % p.a. on the amount deposited by Complainant till handing over of possession alongwith Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.
- Aggrieved by this Order dated 03.05.2010 of the District Forum, the Respondent / Opposite Party – Meerut Development Authority filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide its Order dated 07.05.2014, partially allowed the Appeal by modifying the Order of the District Forum and ordering the Opposite Party to issue notice to the Complainant for payment of the remaining amount at the rate payable on the date of allotment of the disputed plot of land. Subsequent to the above payment, the Opposite Party must handover the possession to the Complainant alongwith Rs. 3,000/- in total towards financial loss and cost of proceedings.
- As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I do not find it relevant to reiterate the same.
- I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.
- The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner / Complainant had obtained registration for allotment of plot of land on 13.09.1989, but was subsequently informed about the cancellation of the allotment. On 30.08.2008, the Complainant submitted an application to the Respondent to restore the allotment which on 20.09.2008 was done, but at the current rate and not the old rate. The learned Counsel submitted that it was not the fault of the Complainant as possession was expected to be given in the year 1992 as per the instalment letter of the Respondent. For no fault of the Complainant, the allotment was cancelled in the year 2006 allegedly for non-payment of the instalments. He pointed out that no notice was received by the Complainant and that it was sent on a wrong address as per the evidence provided. He further submitted that the allotment price was already paid in the beginning and therefore, sought the allotment at the old rate when the plot was initially allotted. He also submitted that the project of development work was not carried out by the Respondent.
- The learned Counsel for the Respondent / Opposite Party submitted that the delay in carrying out the development work was on account of farmers’ agitation beyond the control of the Authority. He admitted that there was an error of dispatch of letter of instalment to a wrong address, but the Complainant had obtained a copy of the same from the office of the Petitioner as per the State Commission’s Order. The cancellation was rightly done for non-payment of instalments. He cited the Order of this Commission in Meerut Development Authority vs. Jagdish Chand Gupta, R.P. No. 2353/2011, decided on 13.07.2020, wherein it was held that a fresh allotment of a plot cannot be done at the old price when the old allotment was already cancelled by the Petitioner Authority and the rate has to be the prevailing rate at the time of fresh allotment.
- The case has been dealt with in detail by both, the State Commission and the District Forum and I do not want to go into the details of when the Registration was done for allotment of the plot, when it was cancelled for non-payment of the instalments, when it was restored and thereafter, the fresh allotment made at the current rate at the time of fresh allotment. These have been adequately dealt with by the two Commissions. The only question of law before this Commission is what should be the rate at which the plot of land be provided to the allottee / Complainant / Petitioner. The allottee wants the rates prevalent at the time of first Registration in the year 1989. The State Commission, in its well-reasoned Order, has ordered the rate to be that which was prevalent at the time of re-allotment, which is in the year 2008. Though, there is some force in the arguments of the Petitioner that the notice for payment of instalment was sent on a wrong address, however, it is to be noted that no effort was made by the Petitioner to find out about the status of the payment and possession of the plot. Further, he was in the knowledge of instalment order of the Authority. There is no evidence as what happened during the period 1992 to 2008. Therefore, the question of allotment of plot at the old rate does not arise and the Order of the State Commission is in order in fixing up the rate at the time of re-allotment. I see no reason to interfere with the Order of the State Commission, which suffers from no illegality or material irregularity.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed and the Order of the State Commission is upheld.
| |
