Heard learned counsel for petitioner on admission. Factual matrix are that respondent was allotted residential plot No.11-P, Sector 12, Sonipat, measuring 324 Sq. Mtr. for consideration value of Rs.3,35,035/-. However, since possession of residential plot was not delivered to respondent by petitioner-authority, he took recourse, for redressal of his grievance, to Consumer Grievance Redressal Agency, filing a consumer complaint with District Forum. Claim of respondent was resisted by petitioner-HUDA holding that as per condition No.7 of allotment letter, possession of site was to be delivered only after development work was accomplished in the locality. District Forum, however, having overruled contentions raised on behalf of petitioner while accepting claim directed petitioner to refund deposits made by respondent alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum. Appeal too preferred by HUDA did not find favour with State Commission. It is how that petitioner is in revision. Resisting claim of respondent contentions are sought to be reiterated taking recourse to condition No.7 of the allotment letter, which provides that possession of site will be handed over to respondent only after development work was completed. However, one may not loose sight of latter part of condition No.7, which enjoins that in case of delay, possession of undeveloped site is to be delivered within 90 days. Admittedly possession of site was not delivered even after lapse of more than seven months. Learned counsel for petitioner would however submit that since there has been escalation of cost of the land, respondent cannot be benefited twice even availing benefit of interest on deposit. This revision petition has been preferred by petitioner after lapse of 345 days beyond prescribed period of limitation and for which application for condonation of delay was filed stating inter alia therein that revision petition could not be preferred in time as copy of impugned order got misplaced and also for procedural delay in processing matter to file revision. Least said is better about reasonings assigned for belated filing of revision petition. If the copy of impugned order was misplaced, authority could not blame others. Since sufficient ground has not been disclosed in application for condonation of delay, revision petition merits dismissal on this score alone. However, on merit too, having taken notice of second part of condition No.7 that petitioner had to develop site and deliver possession thereof within 90 days, I find that finding recorded by State Commission in affirming, order of District Forum making petitioner liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum on deposits made by respondent do not require interference and in that view of matter petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER | |
