JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The only controversy which falls for consideration is ‘whether the plot allotted to the complainant, is 52 sq. mtr. or 128 sq. mtr.’ -2- 2. Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. 3. Shri Sushil Kumar Rai, the complainant, applied for a plot in Jankipuram Extension Scheme on 14.06.2002 by depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/-. On 23.08.2002, allotment fee in the sum of Rs.15,000/- was deposited for a plot bearing No. 5/220/H in Jankipuram Extension Scheme. The complainant was explained that the total cost of plot having area of 128 sq. mtr. was Rs.2,36,800/-. The complainant further paid a sum of Rs.95,000/- on different dates. The complainant required that how much money was to be paid so that he could get the possession of the premises in dispute. The complainant was offered a plot of 52 sq. mtr. 4. The letter dated 1.7.2005 written by Deputy Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, to the complainant, is very crucial. Its relevant paras run as follows: “With reference to your application dated 20.6.05 on the above subject, this is to inform you that as per the information provided by the Engineering Division of the LDA, size of plot No. 5/220/H in Jankipuram Yojana has become 52 sq. mtr. You have mentioned in your letter that you do not need a plot of 52 sq. mtr. Size in your requirement is not less than 128 sq. mtr. Earlier, the aforesaid plot was shown -3- in the land of facilities due to some reasons and it is not possible to execute registry of the plot. This is, therefore, to inform you that you can take refund of the money deposited by you as per the rules. It is not possible to allot an alternate plot to you in exchange of the aforesaid plot.” This letter itself goes to show that the complainant had applied for 128 sq. mtr. plot. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Lucknow Development Authority has produced the application form of the complainant. Neither his application nor the allotment letter mentions the area of the plot in question. However, the application moved by the complainant clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that he had applied for ‘C’ type plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Lucknow Development Authority admits that ‘C’ type plot means 128 sq. mtr. plot. In our opinion, no mentioning about the area of the plot in the allotment, is deficiency on the part of petitioner/authority. It is difficult to fathom for whom this hide and seek game is being played by the petitioner/authority. The complainant has applied as back as in the year 2002. Almost one and a half decade had already elapsed. -4- 6. It is well said that Justice delayed is not only Justice denied, it is also Justice circumvented, Justice mocked and the system of Justice, undermined. 7. On the basis of above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said costs be paid to the complainant within 45 days from today, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. It is also made clear that the complainant be put in possession of the plot, as directed by the State Commission, within a period of 90 days from today, otherwise, the petitioner/authority will pay penalty of Rs.1000/- per day till the compliance of State Commission’s order. | 
