HUDA vs Uday Raj Singh

MR. S.K. Naik, Presiding Member-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/authority and respondent.

IT has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner/authority that respondent/complainant was allotted plot No. 1278-P, Scotor-2, Palwal on 19.2.1998. However, when he failed to make payments of due instalments, a show cause notice was issued to him on the 3rd of November, 2000. The respondent/complainant on the 4th of November, 2002 surrendered the allotment, stating that he is not in a position to pay the instalments in respect of the above said plot. It was also stated therein that he did not require the said plot any longer. The petitioner/authority under the circumstances refunded the deposited amount as per their policy after deducting 10% of the amount so deposited on 21st of May, 2002. However, despite his voluntary surrender of the plot, the respondent/complainant approached the District Consumer Forum on 30th May, 2005 and cleverly sought re-allotment of an alternative plot, besides seeking adjustment of the deducted amount in the price of the alternate plot along with 15% interest, compensation of Rs. 50,000 and cost of Rs. 11,000. The District Forum allowed the complaint without proper application of mind, forcing the petitioner/authority to file an appeal before the State Commission. When their appeal was pending before the State Commission, who had not acceded to HUDA''s request for grant of stay, the respondent/complainant had filed an execution application before the District Forum, who, despite the pleading that the matter was pending in appeal before the State Commission, issued bailable warrants against the Estate Officer, HUDA and it was under the threat of arrest that the petitioner/authority complied with the order of the District Forum. However, when their appeal came up for decision before the State Commission on the 9th of June, 2009, the State Commission dismissed their appeal holding that since the petitioner/authority had already complied with the order passed by the District Forum during the pendency of the appeal nothing remained in the appeal to be decided and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

LEARNED Counsel submits that when the appeal was pending before the State Commission and its final outcome was subject to the final decision of the appeal, it was improper on the part of the State Commission not to have adjudicated upon the appeal on merit. Legally he contends that as per Section 144 (Doctrine of Restitution) of the CPC, compliance of the order passed by the competent Court of law is always subject to the outcome of the final decision. In this respect, he has referred to Southeastern Coalfields Limited v. State of M.P., VII (2003) SLT 664=2003 (2) Apex Court Judgments 708 (SC). It was in this background that he submits that there being a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner/authority, the revision petition be admitted.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent/complainant, on the other hand has contended that in a similar matter with identical facts a revision petition (i.e. RP No. 388 of 2010) filed by this very petitioner/authority (HUDA) came up for decision before a two-members Bench of this Commission presided over by the Hon''ble President in the case of HUDA and Ors. v. Mithlesh Kumari, and this revision petition, which was contested by the learned Counsel appearing before this Bench for petitioner/authority, was dismissed at the stage of admission itself. He has produced a certified copy of the said order dated 16th February, 2010 passed in the above referred revision petition. He, therefore, submits that the facts of the present case being fully covered by the said decision need no interference by this Bench.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner/authority has submitted that the order relied upon by the respondent/complainant does not refer to the Doctrine of Restitution under Section 144 of the CPC and is to be distinguished on facts.

BE that as it may, a two-members Bench of this Commission presided over by the Hon''ble President has already dismissed the revision petition of the present petitioner/authority in the case of HUDA and Ors. v. Mithlesh Kumari (supra), wherein it has been held that no cause of action survives since the petitioner/authority had allotted a plot, given its possession, sanctioned building plan, etc., and their appeal had been dismissed by the State Commission. The facts of this case being very similar, this Bench cannot take a view different from what two-members Bench (supra), has held and, accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. R.P. dismissed.