1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 29.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.3019 of 2006 in which order dated 11.08.2006 of Kanpur Dehat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 138 of 2000 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 29.12.2007 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant)  were Respondents in the said FA No. 3019 of 2006 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondents was Complainant before the District Forum in CC no. 138 of 2000.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent on 11.09.2018.  Both the Parties filed their Written Arguments/Synopsis on 31.08.2023.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that in the year 1965, the complainant submitted his application for allotment of plot admeasuring 200 sq. yds on the basis of advertisement published by Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur Nagar and deposited Rs.200/- on 17.12.1965.  The aforesaid application was submitted under Kakadev Yojna, Kanpur.  After the enforcement of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, a development authority known as Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) was constituted in the year 1973.  Thereafter, KDA issued notification to the effect that applicants who  had applied for allotment of plot under Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur Nagar will be allotted plots in Panki, Sujatganj and W-2 Juhi Yojna in Kanpur Nagar.  Accordingly, KDA allotted plots in the year 1998 through draw of lots and plot no.105-A in Sujatganj, Kanpur Nagar was allotted in favour of complainants and he was directed to deposit Rs.2400/- in connection with the aforesaid allotment.  Accordingly, the complainant deposited the said amount.  The said allotted plot was contiguous to the Edgah and was a disputed plot.  The OP did not allot an alternate plot to the complainant between 1988 and 1994 and name of complainant was kept in wait list whereas complainant kept sending letters to the OP during the aforesaid period. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 11.08.2006 allowed the Complaint of the Complainant.  Being aggrieved, the OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 27.03.2014 dismissed the appeal of the OP at the stage of admission being barred by limitation.  The OP being dis-satisfied with the order of the State Commission dated 27.03.2014 filed RP No. 2610 of 2014 before National Commission.  National Commission vide order dated 03.08.2017 set aside the order of the State Commission and remanded the matter back to the State Commission. After remand of the matter to the State Commission, the State Commission vide order dated 29.12.2017 in FA No. 3019 of 2006 partly allowed the Appeal of the OP.  The OP being dis-satisfied with the order of the State Commission is, therefore, before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 29.12.2017 f the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. Petitioner is not a banking or financial institution for grant of interest on the deposited amount and is an organization constituted under the State Government to provide residential facilities to the urban population.  The Petitioner develops residential area on the basis of guidelines and Government orders and takes loan from HUDCO and other financial institutions for the development of scheme after acquiring land for the same.

2. There was neither any provision nor contract of alternative allotment inter-alia earlier the Petitioner had also imposed ban on alternate allotment whereby the Respondent was not allotted alternate plot.

3. Before a demand could be made and the allotment order could be issued in favour of respondent, the respondent had deposited Rs.2400/- towards registration amount before the Petitioner.

4. The respondent submitted application before the Petitioner for alternate allotment, despite the respondent not being a consumer, the application of respondent was considered and a letter dated 26.05.1993 was issued stating that if the respondent was willing to have 200 sq. yds Plot-I under the aforesaid scheme at the then prevailing rate and conditions then he may submit his willingness and give his consent within a week to the petitioner, however, the respondent refused to take alternate plot at the rate and sought allotment at rate prevailing in the year 1988.

5. After expiry of seven years from the date of deposit of registration amount i.e. 26.04.1988, the respondent filed a highly time barred complaint case in the year 1995 seeking allotment of plot at the then prevailing rate in the year 1988.

6. Respondent is not a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection since merely depositing registration money for allotment of plot or house, one cannot become consumer.  No allotment order was never issued in favour of respondent.

7. State Commission erred in awarding Rs.22,000/- as compensation and litigation cost and imposing  interest @ 12% p.a.

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1. Counsel for the Petitioner repeated the points which are stated in para 5, grounds for challenging the order of the State Commission, hence the same are not being repeated here.Counsel for the respondent argued that in the affidavit of Joint Secretary of KDA, it was considered that there was no default, deficiency or mistake on the part of the complainant and it is also apparent that plot no. 105-A Sujatganj, Kanpur Nagar allotted to the respondent was subsequently given to Idgah Colony.This shows that it was not a disputed plot but KDA due to political pressure did not execute deed of the plot in favour of complainant nor delivered possession to him. Counsel further argued that is not correct that plotno.105-A Sujatganj, Kanpur Nagar which was given to the respondent by lottery was found to be disputed and as a matter of fact the said plot was subsequently allotted to Idgah Colony subsequent to lottery in favour of the respondent and thus it was made disputed.It is further argued by counsel for the respondent that there was no ban for allotment of alternate plot which is evident from the decision of the Board of KDA taken on 24.04.2013 wherein it is mentioned that alternate plot shall be allotted by V.C., KDA on recommendation by Committee constituted for allotment of alternate plots.Further, cause of action for filing of complaint arose when letter dated 26.05.1993 was given to the respondent in which it was incorporated that the plot shall be allotted to the respondent on present rate and conditions, it was after service of letter dated 26.03.1993 thatrespondent filed a complaint without any delay and immediately after refusal of allotment of plot vide letter dated 09.03.1995, the complaint was filed.

6.2.    It is further argued that respondent is a consumer as Petitioner has accepted the amount from the complainant.  It is further submitted that value of money deposited by the complainant in 1998 has been devalued in the present time and complainant is waiting for allotment of plot for more than 55 years.

7.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the party.  In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora against the Petitioner herein.  As regards contention of Petitioner that Respondent is not a Consumer, when a Public Authority like the Petitioner herein notifies a scheme, receives applications in pursuance to such scheme along with registration amount etc, such applicants get a right to get their applications considered in accordance with terms and conditions of such scheme and get allotment, if found eligible, subject to fulfillment of required formalities and deposit of price etc. Such Authorities have to act in a fair and transparent manner and not as per their whims and fancies.  Such applicants / allottees are definitely consumers of such authority and if there is any deficiency in service on the part of such authority, consumer fora have the jurisdiction.  Further, State Commission in its order has stated that learned Counsel appearing for appellant (Petitioner herein) has not disputed the status of the Complainant as ‘Consumer’.   As regards limitation in filing the complaint, State Commission has adequately and appropriately addressed this issue in its order dated 29.12.2017 observing that since the appellant sent a letter to the complainant on 26.05.1993, therefore, it cannot be said that the cause of action had expired in the year 1995 when the complainant filed the present Complaint Case before the Forum, and rejected the contention of Petitioner herein that complaint was time barred.  We tend to agree with the observations and reason of the State Commission in this regard.  State Commission has also appropriately addressed the contentions of Petitioner herein that the issue involved is about cost of the plot and Consumer Commission does not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint involving a dispute of cost of plot.  State Commission has observed in its order “Appellant himself has stated that Complainant completed all required formalities and never committed any default whatsoever.  In such a situation, it cannot be considered that appellant was entitled to collect cost of the plot at the rate prevailing in the year 1995 instead of the rate prevailing in 1988 for the reason that present case does not involve any dispute about cost of plot.  The complainant is ready and willing to pay cost of plot at the rate prevailing in 1988 and undisputedly the aforesaid plot was allotted to him in the year 1988 itself.” 

8.       It is an admitted fact that respondent herein had submitted an application for allotment of flat as early as in the year 1965, i.e. about 58 years back, deposited the requisite fee prevalent at that time on 17.12.1965 and was allotted a flat by the Petitioner/its predecessor authority.  Although the Petitioner contends that possession of said flat could not be delivered as said plot was disputed, respondent disputes this version.  Petitioner admits that a proposal was sent to allot another plot to him, but at the current rates. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner herein to allot alternate plot to the respondent herein at the rate prevailing in the year 1988 and pay Rs.22,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.  However, State Commission in appeal, partly allowing the appeal, ordered as follows:-

“Appeal is hereby partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 11.8.2006 passed by the District Forum, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case no. 138/2000 is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is hereby directed to allot a plot admeasuring 200 sq. yard, subject to availability in the Yojana in question and consent of the complainant, in favour of the respondent/complainant within 2 months from today. The appellant shall recover cost of such plot from the respondent/complainant  the rate prevailing in 1988. In case the respondent/complainant is not willing to accept the alternate plot, then the appellant shall return to the complainant the entire amount deposited by him with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of deposit till actual realization. Appellant shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.22,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.” 

9.       In this regard, State Commission in its order observed as follows:-

    “Ld. Counsel for the appellant further argued that the Learned District Forum, by means of the impugned judgment, has directed the appellant to allot alternate plot in favour of complainant at the rate prevailing in 1988 whereas the advertised/notified Scheme of the appellant was proposed for Panki, Sujat Ganj and W-2 Juhi Yojana only. It was clearly mentioned in the notification/advertisement that applications related to other Scheme shall not be entertained. This argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant bears force. Respondent/complainant has filed Rules and Terms and Conditions of allotment of plot concerning the notified/advertised scheme wherein it is clearly mentioned in Para 8 that "In this Scheme, applications for allotment plot in Panki, Sujatganj and WW-2 Juhi scheme will only be accepted. Applications for allotment of plot in any other scheme shall not entertained. Therefore, the appellant cannot be directed to allot a plot to the complainant which is covered under any other schemes as the cost of plot depends on existing circumstances and facilities available at the particular area. Respondent/complainant is not entitled to get alternate plot in each and every Schemes of the Appellant.” 

10.     Counsel for the respondents argued that there was no ban for allotment allotment of alternate plot which is evident from the decision of the Board of KDA taken on 24.04.2013 wherein it is mentioned that alternate plot shall be allotted by V.C., KDA on recommendation by Committee constituted for allotment of alternate plots.  Respondents have argued that the plot which was allotted to the complainant by Lottery was Plot no. 105-A Sujatganj, Kanpur Nagar after deposit of Rs.2400/- by the complainant as consideration of this plot, was allotted to the Idgah Colony by KDA, subsequent to lottery of this plot in favour of the complainant and thus this plot was made a disputed plot after successful lottery in favour of the complainant. This plot was never disputed plot before its lottery in favour of the complainant. It was in the affidavit of the Joint Secretary himself filed from the side of the KDA in which it was considered that there was no default, deficiency or mistake on the part of the respondent/complainant and it is also apparent that plot No. 105A Sujatganj, Kanpur Nagar allotted to the respondent was subsequently given to the Idgah Colony. It shows that it was not a disputed Plot but the KDA due to political pressure did not execute Deed of the plot in favour of the respondent/complainant nor delivered possession to him. That the revisionist has filed the present revision before this Hon'ble commission just to delay the matter. The Revisionist who is government authority is taking advantage in defeating the lawful right of the poor complainant who applied for a Plot of 200 Square Yards in the year 1965 and he is not having any place in Sujatganj, Kanpur City either in his name or in the name of his family and his wife and has not applied.

11.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the RP is disposed off with the following directions/reliefs: -

1. Concurring with the orders of the District Forum, we hold that Respondent herein is entitled to get the plot at the rates prevalent in the year 1988. Hence the Petitioner herein is directed to allot an alternate plot of similar size/features/location at the rates prevailing in 1988, at which the earlier plot No. 105 A in Sujatganj, Kanpur was allotted.  Petitioner shall issue a provisional allotment letter and communicate in writing to the Respondent herein, within one month of date of this order, the exact details of the alternate plot so allotted; plot No., size, dimensions, location/area etc. and such other relevant details, including the balance amount payable by him towards such plot, after adjusting the amount already paid by the Respondent during 1988, giving him one month’s time to pay such  amount.  The Petitioner shall be entitled to charge simple interest @ 6% p.a. on such balance amount payable w.e.f. 1988 till the date of actual payment.  Immediately on receipt of payment from the respondent, Petitioner shall issue a final allotment letter within 2 weeks of receipt of payment. After issuance of final allotment letter, within a maximum of 45 days, Petitioner herein shall execute a conveyance deed and register the same in favour of the Respondent after completion of all the requisite formalities in this regard. 

2. Petitioner herein shall also pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and litigation costs (including the amount of Rs.22000/- awarded by the District Forum).  This amount shall be adjusted by Petitioner in the amount payable by the Respondent towards plot and provisional allotment letter to be issued as per above order shall duly reflect such adjustments.  If after such adjustment, any amount is payable by Petitioner to the Respondent, same shall be paid within 30 days of issuance of allotment letter.

3. For any delay in issuance of provisional allotment letter beyond one month and/or final allotment letter within two weeks of receipt of final payment from the Respondent, Petitioner shall be liable to pay a further compensation @ Rs.5000/- per month for the first three months and @ Rs.10,000/- per month for any delay thereafter till the issuance of provisions/allotment letter as the case may be .  Similarly, for any delay in signing of conveyance deed and registering the same beyond 45 days of issuance of final allotment letter, the Petitioner shall be liable to pay an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- per month for each month’s delay or part thereof.

4. Orders of State Commission and District Forum stand modified to this extent. 

12.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.