Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/457/2015

Shivdayal Mathur s/o Shriniwas Mathur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan housing Board Through Diptty. Housing Commission - Opp.Party(s)

D.M. Mathur

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1003 /2015

 

Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur

Vs.

 

Shiv Dayal Mathur s/o Shriniwas Mathur r/o 199/116 Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 457/2015

 

Shiv Dayal Mathur s/o Shriniwas Mathur r/o 199/116 Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Janpath ( Bhagwandas Road) Jaipur through Secretary & ors.

 

Date of Order 27.01.2016

 

 

2

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the complainant Shivdayal Mathur

Mr.Rameshwar Dayal Avasthi counsel for the Housing Board

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

 

These appeals have been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 13.3.2015.

 

The Housing Board has filed the appeal with delay of 132 days. The matter has come up on the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Admittedly the judgment has been passed on 13.3.2015 and reason assigned for the delay is that to obtain legal opinion time has been consumed but no details have been given and only a vague averment has been made which cannot

 

3

 

 

be said to be reasonable and sufficient explanation to the delay and appeal is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay. Hence, application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and so also Appeal No. 1003/2015.

 

The complainant Shivdayal has also preferred an appeal on the ground that the court below has ordered to pay 10% interest on the cost of additional land i.e. 37.5 sq.mt.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as the original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that on the spot the appellant has excess land to the tune of 37.5 sq.mt.and the court below has very liberally ordered that this land should be allowed to be retained by the appellant after depositing the rate of land prevalent on 14.10.1991.

 

It is also admitted fact that land of 37.5 sq.mt. i.e. excess land is in possession of the appellant since the allotment of the house and he is enjoying the fruits of the excess land. Hence,

 

4

 

 

interest has rightly been allowed and no interference is needed.

 

In view of the above there is no force in the appeal and appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm