JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The petitioner/complainant got himself registered for allotment of a plot of land with the respondent-Authority by depositing a sum of Rs.12,000/- with it. In the year 1991 a plot No.67 measuring 200 sq.mtr. was allotted to him. According to the complainant, when he went to the site to see the plot allotted to him, he found that no development work had been carried out at the site and there was no arrangement of electricity, water, sewer, road, etc.. According to the complainant he deposited as many as eight installments for a total sum of Rs.1,35,690/- but despite that the possession was not handed over to him. According to the complainant, he received a letter on 15-09-1994 from the Authority, stating therein that possession could be given to him on payment of lease rent but when he again visited the site he found that the development work had not been completed and the Authority was demanding the watch and ward charges. Being aggrieved from the acts of the respondent-Authority the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking the following reliefs:

(a)     that respondent may kindly be directed by the Hon’ble Forum to pay the deposited amount of Rs.1,35,690/- of the complainant along with interest @24% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment;

(b)     that compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of financial and mental hardships suffered by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as cost of proceedings may kindly be awarded.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent-Authority. In its written statement the Authority denied the allegation that there was no arrangement of electricity, water, sewer, road, etc., and claimed that the entire development work was complete at the site. It was further alleged that despite having complete knowledge of the payment schedule, the complainant did not make payment of the installments in time. It was further stated in the written statement that the complainant did not pay either the advance lease rent or the increased land premium as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was also claimed that there was no provision in the Scheme for refund of the deposited amount by the applicant along with interest on that amount. The case of the respondent-Authority has been that the information regarding escalation of cost amounting to Rs.1,28,800/- was sent to the complainant vide letters dated 16-08-1997, 31-12-1998 and 24-10-2000.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 06-09-2003 directed the respondent-Authority to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,690/- that the complainant had deposited with it along with interest on that amount at the rate of 15% per annnum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Compensation amounting to Rs.8,000/- and cost of proceeding amounting to Rs.5,000/- were also awarded to the complainant.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the Meerut Development Authority approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission, noticing that the complainant had not paid the increased price which was based upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the complainant was entitled only to refund of the amount deposited by him, after making deductions as per the rules of the Authority. The order passed by the District Forum was, therefore, modified by directing the Authority to refund the amount deposited by the complainant after making deductions from the said amount as per the terms & conditions contained in the Brochure issued by the Authority.

          Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

6.      The learned counsel for the complainant submits that since there was no development on the site the complainant was bound to pay the amount demanded by the Authority. He further submits that in any case the complainant is now ready to deposit the entire amount demanded by the Authority but possession of the plot in question should be given to him.

7.      At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to approach the Authority in terms of ground (j) in the appeal filed by the Authority before the State Commission, against the order of the District Forum dated 06-09-2003.

8.      In view of the aforesaid submission, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn along with the accompanying applications. Leave as sought is granted. As and when any such representation is made by the petitioner to the Authority it shall be considered by the said Authority on its own merits.