Petitioner was opposite party No.1 before the District Forum.

Respondent, who was working as a Baliff (Amin) in a Sub Court Pattukkottai was allotted a LIG house while he was in service.  He paid the entire consideration amount in different instalments to the petitioner.  He even paid the enhanced amount demanded by the petitioner on account of enhanced compensation to land owners.  Thereafter, he approached the petitioner to execute the sale deed but the petitioner, instead of executing the sale deed demanded an additional amount of Rs.34,436/- for getting the sale deed executed.  Respondent filed the complaint with the grievance that there was no justification whatsoever on the part of the petitioner in demanding the additional sum of Rs.34,436/- after 13 years from the delivery of the house to the respondent.

District Forum, vide its order dated 11.1.2001, allowed the complaint against petitioner and dismissed the same against opposite party No.2 by observing that the petitioner had failed to put on record any evidence to show that the increase was due to enhancement of the price of the land by a Court of Law. 

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Forum and reiterated the finding that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to show that increase in the price was due to enhancement of the price of the land by a Court of Law.

Being aggrieved, the present Revision Petition has been filed along with an application for bringing on record the additional documents.

Petitioner has put on record the order passed by the High Court confirming the order dated 29.10.1987 passed by the Reference Court enhancing the price of the land.  Order of the High Court is dated 8.10.1991.  Complaint was decided by the District Forum on 11.1.2001 and the appeal was decided by the State Commission on 30.10.2009.  Order of the High Court as well as of the Reference Court was in possession of the petitioner but in spite of that the same was not put on record.  It is not the case of the petitioner that the additional documents which are sought to be put on record were not in its possession or came into its possession subsequently.  The petitioner has failed to make out a case for putting additional documents on record.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner has failed to prove that the enhancement demanded by the petitioner was due to any increase granted by a Court of Law for the construction of the houses.  Dismissed.