JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      This order shall decide all the five revision petitions, which have been filed by Indore Development Authority (hereinafter referred as to ‘the IDA’) against five consumers, namely, Yousuf and others, Bhavna and another, Kantilal and another, Vikas Murli and others and Pankaj and another, who are members of Sindh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. which has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in all the five revision petitions because these five petitions arise out of a single judgment. 

2.      I have taken the facts from revision petition No. 3173 of 2013-Indore Development Authority vs. Yousuf and another. 

3.      One of the functions of the IDA is to develop the land and to sell the plots to general public.  Under Resolution 9, it decided to acquire the land for housing societies falling within their scheme 97 IV.  94 members were proposed to be allotted land by the Sindh Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Gorakund, Indore.  89 members were allotted the land and the land was registered in their names.  As a matter of fact, 94 members were to be allotted the land.  The above said 5 consumers were not allotted the land on the plea that their names were not recommended by the Society.  This is also an admitted fact that these five persons had paid the entire amount i.e. Rs.3,32,000/- or so, each.  The society had sent “the list of eligible members for allotment of plot.  Serial numbers from 1 to 94 are verified from the membership list.”  It is further mentioned that “the list produced is the verification of the membership and not recommendation for allotment of plots”.  This was meant for all the 94/95 members. 

4.      It is surprising to note that when the case is fixed for admission, main counsel does not appear.  He has sent the proxy counsel, who after second call tried to have the adjournment which was denied, in view of our previous order dated 4.10.2013, which runs as follows:

“Dasti notice be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve the same only on respondent-The Sindh Co-operative Housing Society returnable on 21.10.2013.

It is made clear that it will be responsibility of the petitioner to serve the society.  This is a notice for admission only and if they are unable to appear then even in their absence the case will be heard on admission.”

5.      It may also be mentioned that previously the matter was put up before this Commission on 17.9.2013 but the counsel for the petitioner had taken the date on the ground that he was to submit some relevant documents.  It is also noteworthy that proxy counsel appeared with Hindi version of the Rules.  This is how they have made the preparation for arguing this case of significant value. 

6       Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the recommendation of the society is required for the allotment of plots as per Rule 9 of the Grih Nirman Sahakari Sansthaon Ko Bhukhand/Bhumi Aavantan Babad Niti Nirdharan.  Again, Rule 3 says that membership of the members should be verified.

7.      It is difficult to fathom as to why the plots were not allotted to the above said five consumers.  The State Commission held:-

“Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to give reason why the allotment has not been made.  He has merely speculated that these members may not have paid the amount to the Society and therefore, their names were omitted from the list of the eligible member.  If that be so, the Society could have apprised these members of the default and given them a chance to rectify the same.  However, nothing has been stated to decline their eligibility and the District Forum has, therefore, righty directed that if plots from the plots belonging to the Society cannot be allotted, plots be allotted in some other area developed by the IDA.

“4. Learned counsel submits that IDA receives the amount from the Society and since the amount has not been received from the Society, these plots have not been recommended to be allotted to the members.

5. Be that as it may, since  the Society has to deposit the amount which it can recover from the defaulting members, it is for the society to recover the amount and pay the same to the IDA.  We, therefore, dispose of all these appeals with the liberty to the IDA to recover the amount from the Society and consequently from the members and allot the plots in question to the respondent-complainants.”

8.      In its complaint, the complainant explained that he is member of respondent No. 1-Society and his membership number is 258 dated 14.6.2007.  The action taken by the IDA is arbitrarily dictatorial capricious and unreasonable.  It is clear that while working in cahoots with the Society, they have brought the situation to this extent.  It is the duty casts on the IDA to find out that when entire amount has been paid, why the plots have not been granted to the complainants.  They have received the entire amount.  There is not even an iota of evidence, which may go to indicate that the society has to pay some amount.   It may also be mentioned here that none has come from the Society to whom the notice was issued but one advocate appeared on behalf of the complainants to whom notices were yet to be issued. 

9.      It means that the society controls the IDA.  The petitioner-IDA has no role to play.  They dance at the tunes of the society people.  There should be some reason for denying the five plots to the above said complainants.  Even if we assume that the Society people are annoyed with five persons,  that should not come in the way of IDA.  The IDA is an independent body.  Its pious duty is to handover the plots to the public without prejudice.  It is thus clear that IDA is terribly remiss in discharge of its duty.   The whole version smacks of fig leaf job.  The law should have authority over men and not men over law.  It is also surprising to note that the IDA did not take any action despite the needle of suspicion pointed towards its lame duck officers instead  they have chosen to file this frivolous revision petitions.  Public money is being wasted like this.

10.    All these revision petitions are meritless and the same are dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to each complainant or group of complainants.  The said amount be paid to the respondent within 90 days failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 9% till realisation.  and the plots shall be allotted to them within 90 days i.e. after the lapse of total 6 years, failing which the IDA will be liable to pay extra penalty of Rs.500/- per day till the plots are allotted to the complainants.  The time of 90 days will start from the date of receipt of its order by the petitioners.