Dr. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 

The Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in Appeal No. 198 of 2016, wherein the State Commission, partly allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.

2. The issue involved that the Development Authority raised demand arbitrarily from the allottee. 

3. Brief facts are that in the year 1979, the Petitioner, Lucknow Development Authority (for short ‘LDA’) allotted a Plot No. B-1, Sector-K, Aliganj Yojna to the Respondent and a lease deed was executed on 23.04.1981. The physical possession was also delivered.  As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Lease Deed, it was mandatory for the Complainant to commence construction of residential building on the plot within 5 years after getting the sanctioned building map from the LDA; failing which non-construction charges/levy as per rules to be paid by the allottee. As the Complainant for his job was staying in Bangalore, therefore he constructed only a compound wall of 6 feet height. Further,   the Complainant started paying the lease rent up to1989. In the meanwhile, the LDA informed the Complainant that if he agrees to pay   lump sum lease rent for 10 years, then in future he need not pay lease rent. In compliance thereof, on 11.08.1988 the Complainant paid Rs. 2,970/- and on 23.09.2002 he applied for conversion of leasehold to freehold property through UCO Bank by submitting an application along with all required documents, including Challan No. 17162 for Rs. 10.94/-. It was alleged that the Petitioner- LDA negligently lost the freehold file of the Complainant; therefore the aforesaid plot could not be converted in freehold property. On 22.03.2011, the LDA issued a Demand Letter to the Complainant for deposit of Rs. 8,73,410/- before 30.06.2011 towards the charges for non-construction of residential building on the allotted plot.

4. Being aggrieved due to deficiency in service and negligently lost the file by the Petitioner, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Lucknow.

5. In the defense, the Opposite Parties denied the allegations and submitted that no such application for free hold received from the Complainant either to Bank or to the LDA. The demand of Rs. 8,73,410/- was raised as per rules.

6. The District Forum partly allowed the Complaint with following observations:

“According to the Complainant, the opposite party allotted a Plot No. b/l/K Aligang Street in city Extension Scheme to the Complainant on 30.6.1979. Opposite party executed lease deed of the aforesaid plot in favour of the Complainant on 23.4.81 and also delivered physical possession of the plot to the Complainant. The Complainant regularly paid lease rent of Rs. 297.00 per annum till 1989 through demand draft as per the rules. In the meanwhile, the department orally informed the Complainant that if he agrees to pay lease rent of 10 years in lump sum, no lease rent will be payable in future. In compliance thereof, the Complainant paid Rs. 2,970/- on 11.8.88. After taking possession of the plot, the Complainant erected 6 ft. high boundary wall around the plot and sought some time for the remaining construction. On 22.3.11, the office of opposite party, with mala fide intention, sent a notice directing the Complainant to deposit Rs. 8,73,410/- before 30.6.11 as Levy Charges on the pretext of non-construction of residential building on the allotted plot. Since the freehold file of the Complainant has been lost due to negligence on the part of the opposite party as a result the aforesaid plot could not be converted in freehold. Had the aforesaid plot been converted into freehold property, the Complainant would have avoided the penalty. The Complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.2.2011 to the opposite party but the opposite party did not pay any heed to it. Being aggrieved by the approach and attitude of the opposite party, the instant, Complainant has been filed by the Complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum with the prayer that a direction be issued to the opposite party to trace out the freehold file of the Complainant and restraining them to recovery Rs. 8.73,410/- on account of levy charges for non-construction of residential house in the allotted plot as per the terms of lease deed and to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complaint against physical and mental harassment; Rs. 11000/- as fee of lawyer; Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation. 

In the light of the foregoing facts, prima facie it appears to this Forum that the opposite party is guilty of committing deficiency in service as the opposite party has although filed its written statement but has not filed any affidavit. Opposite party has wrongly and illegally imposed the penalty upon the Complainant. Opposite party is absent and the statements of the Complainant are irrefutable. In such a situation, the Forum has no alternative but to rely upon the statements of Complainant. The Complainant repeated approached the opposite party. Complainant has suffered physical and mental stress in approaching the opposite party and sending legal notice, etc. It is, thus, evident that the Complainant has definitely suffered mentally and physically for no fault on his part. Resultantly, the complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be allowed partly.

ORDER

 “Complaint of the Complainant is hereby partly allowed. Opposite party is hereby directed to trace out the freehold file of Complainant and complete all required formalities to convert the plot in freehold within three months and not to recover Rs. 8,73,410/- as a penalty from the Complainant. Besides, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 5000 as cost of litigation.”

7. Being aggrieved the Opposite Party -LDA filed a First Appeal No. 198/2016 before the State Commission. It was partly allowed with modification of Order of District Forum with following observations:

“Respondent/Complainant has produced copy of application dated 23-09-2002 moved for freehold alongwith receipt of Rs. 1,094/- issued by UCO Bank, Lucknow. Application dated 23-09-2002 moved by Complainant/respondent also contains endorsement of receipt by UCO Bank on 23-09-2002. Perusal of letter dated 23-03-2011 issued by appellant to respondent shows that appellant has taken notice of deposit of above Rs. 1,094/- deposited by respondent on 23-09-2002. It is therefore apparent that appellant has admitted application dated 23-09-2002 moved by respondent as well as amount deposited with it. As such District Consumer Forum has rightly ordered appellant to complete formalities of freehold on the basis of application dated 23-09-2002 moved by respondent. Without assessing liabilities of respondent on 23-09-2002 on the basis of freehold application moved by him on 23-09-2002, the demand raised by appellant for Rs.8,73,410/- vide letter dated 22-03-2011 is against law. District Consumer Forum has rightly restrained appellant from realizing this amount of Rs. 8,73,410/-.

 

Respondent has moved application on 23-09-2002 for freehold. Thereafter he went on sleeping and awake after 9 years. Considering whole facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that Rs. 10,000/- awarded by District Consumer Forum as compensation for mental harassment should be set aside.

 

In view of conclusions drawn above appeal is allowed partly. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by District Consumer Forum to Complainant for mental harassment is set aside. Remaining part of impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is upheld.

If records of freehold application moved by respondent on 23.09.2002 is not traceable, the appellant may reconstruct records and proceed further in accordance with law.”

 

8. Being aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission the LDA filed the instant Revision Petition. 

9. Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order of the District Forum and the Order of the State Commission.

10.  We have perused the Circular of LDA and the receipts on record.  The Complainant had paid Rs.2970/- as lease rent for 10 years advance on 11.10.1989 and challan 23.09.2002 for Rs.1132/- paid in UCO Bank towards the conversion fee.  However, the LDA failed to convert the plot to freehold on the ground that the file was lost.  It itself indicates negligence and perfunctory attitude of the Development Authority. We agree with the concurrent findings (observations) made by the District Forum and the State Commission and passed the reasoned Orders.  

11. The Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been recently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] by observing as under:-

“It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12. The State Commission has passed a reasoned order and it does not suffer from any legal infirmities. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may require interference with the impugned Order of the State Commission.

The instant Revision Petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed.