PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      These two revision petitions will be decided by the same judgment as both of them entail the same questions of facts and law.  There is a delay of 94 days in filing the First Appeal before the State Commission. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the said delay was condoned vide order passed by the State Commission on 30.05.2005.  This is a true copy and it is difficult to fathom why the certified copy was not filed.  The delay was condoned and costs of Rs. 500/- were imposed upon the appellant.  However, the main order was passed on 09.11.2011.  Counsel for the petitioner submits that time should be given to produce the certified copy.  This is a delaying tactic.  The cause of action arose prior to 10.10.2002 when the complaint was filed.  For this small issue, enough time has

­-3-

already elapsed.  No further time can be granted and we will assume that this document is genuine because there is no objection from the other party.

2.      Now we turn to the order dated 09.11.2011 rendered by the State Commission.  It is surprising to note that the issue of delay was taken again and this time delay was not condoned.  It clearly shows negligence on the part of the staff of State Commission.  However, the first order rendered by a different bench would prevail. Alarm bells should have rung and these revision petitions should have been filed in time, but here too, there is a delay of 35 days each.  Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is only procedural and departmental delay.  The Supreme Court has already held that procedural and departmental delays are not the grounds for condonation of delay.  However, since there is a small delay, therefore, we are inclined to condone it, subject to payment of sufficient costs.  The applications for condonation of delay are accepted subject of payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- each, in both the cases, which be deposited with the Prime Minster Relief Fund towards Uttarakhand tagedy, within 90 days.  The cheques/demand drafts should be in the name of Prime Minister Relief Fund and be given to the Registrar of this Commission, who in turn shall send the cheques to the Prime Minister’s office or else these revision petitions shall stand dismissed.

3.      Now we turn to the merits of this case.  The order passed by the Fora below appears to be untenable.  The District Forum, in para No. 8 of its order, made the following observations:-

“8.      After going through the case file, documents plaed on record and in view of the law referred above by learned counsel for complainant, Forum is of the considered view that complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 55,121/- along with interest at the rate of 10% P.A. from the respondent.  Forum directs to the respondent to refund Rs. 55,121/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% P.A.  It is made clear that interest at the rate of 10% P.A. on an amount of Rs. 55,121/- is to be calculated from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 2.8.2002 till realization.  Ordered accordingly.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.  Order

should be complied within 30 days from the date of preparation of the order.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

4.      It is also surprising to note that the State Commission has discussed all these matters in details and from its observation, it appears that it was going to pass the order in favour of the petitioner.  However, it dismissed the appeals.  This is the settled law  that after surrender of the plot, the petitioner is only entitled to deduct 10% of the price of the plot without any interest.  This view finds support from the judgment in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus M/s Zuari Industries, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 104 (DB).  Consequently, we modify the order of the Fora below and direct that the petitioner will be entitled to deduct 10% of the total amount but the respondent/complainant is not entitled to any payment of interest.  For the residue amount, if any, the respondent can approach the Execution Court for its recovery.

5.      Both the revision petitions stand disposed of.  No costs.