PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the parties present.  This order shall decide two Revision Petitions, which are filed by the Chairman, Vidarbha Housing Construction Work Association, Ma Santoshi Nagar, Near Bhau Mulak Society, Pipla Road, Nagpur.  There are two complainants. The case of complainant Anand Narayanrao Limje is this.  He entered into an agreement with the Managing Director, The Nagpur Construction & Finance Company for purchase of a plot No. 202 (b) Group Kh. No. 17/1 P.H. No. 39  Mouza Chikhali, T & D Nagpur.  Later on, the said company was taken over by the petitioner.  The complainant paid the amount on various dates to the opposite party/petitioner, which already stands admitted by the opponent in its written statement.

2.      The Opposite Party issued a letter to the Company stating that since he had not paid the development charges, the agreement was cancelled without returning the money to the complainant.  The OP sold the said plot to some other person.  In the meantime, the complainant requested the OP to execute the sale deed.  However, the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  Ultimately, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3.      The case of another complainant namely Purushottam Ramrao Nerkar  is that he also entered into an agreement with the Managing Director, Nagpur Construction & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of a plot No. 171 Kh. No.17/1 P.H. No.39 Mouza Chikhali, T & D Nagpur, measuring 1800 sq. ft. for Rs. 2200/-.  Subsequently, the Company was taken over by the petitioner.  The complainant requested the petitioner/OP to execute the sale deed but needful was not done.  The OP has itself admitted that the complainant had paid Rs. 2250/- towards cost of plot to the OP.  The OP informed him vide letter dated 24.02.1984 that since the complainant failed to pay the balance consideration amount, the OP had cancelled the agreement.  However, the case of the complainant is that, as a matter of fact as per letter dated 24.02.1984, OP had demanded Rs. 933/- towards the development charges of the plot.  Accordingly, the said amount was paid on 28.05.1984.  The amount was paid to the OP and the OP issued a receipt in this regard.  This complaint had paid the entire consideration.  It is further surprising to note that the OP sold this plot to Sh. Chintaman Jangam  on 20.04.1985, who in turn sold it to one Smt. Leelabai Bawane on 16.12.1999.  Smt. Leelabai Bawane  constructed a house and is residing in the above said house.  The Nagpur Improvement Trust, in short N.I.T., issued notice to Smt. Leelabai and accordingly, she paid Rs. 29005/- as Development Charges with the N.I.T.

4.      The complaints filed by the complainants were dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that both the complainants have “stale claims.”

5.      Aggrieved by that order, the complainants approached the State Commission.  The State Commission allowed their complaints and in case of Purushottam, directed to pay the cost of the plot at the prevailing rate as per the government ready reckoner prevailing on 14.12.2012 i.e. prevailing on the date of this order dated 14.12.2012 and in the case of Anand Narayanrao Limje , the respondent was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant .  It was further ordered that the complainant would bear the costs of registration and other incidental charges towards NIT, Municipal Corporation and other government authority in this regard.

6.      Aggrieved by this order, the OP has filed two separate Revision Petitions.  Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that before cancelling the plots of both the complainants, notices were given to them.  He contended that notices were sent through U.P.C.  It is well known that the value of UPC is exiguous.  There is no proof at all that the same were received by the complainants.  The possibility of their being manipulated cannot be ruled out.

7.      Counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards para 6 of the agreement which is reproduced here as under:-

“(6) That in case the allottee commits a default in the fulfillment or performance of the above conditions, the company shall have full power to cancel the allotment by a written notice granting one months time, the allottee in the case of cancellation of his own expenses.”

8.      It is clear that the petitioner has failed to prove that the agreement was cancelled as per this provision.  First of all, there is no evidence that the allotted had committed the default in the payment to the consideration (price).  Again, no written notice granting one months’ time was ever given.  There is not even an iota of evidence that these notices were received by the complainants.  It is also surprising to note that till now the petitioner has not made an effort to return the money to the complainants.  The action of the petitioner is arbitrary, dictatorial, capricious, unreasonable, despotic.  This is clearly high handedness on the part of the petitioner.  The people are exasperated by senseless delay.  The action of the petitioner is below the belt.  The petitioner has made an attempt to hoodwink the law.  The Law should have authority over the men and not men over Law.

9.      Consequently, we dismiss, both the Revision Petitions and direct the petitioner/OP to execute the sale deed in RP/3605/2013 within 45 days from the receipt of this order, otherwise the petitioner will pay the penalty of Rs. 500/- per day till the sale deed is executed.  In the second case, RP/3606/2013, amount be paid within 45 days.  OP will further pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.12.2012 till the amount is paid, besides, the amount to be paid as per the order passed by the State Commission.