Kanpur Development Authority vs BITTI DEVI

THE only point arising out of the revision petition relates to the price to be charged in case of allotment of an alternative plot.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a plot No. 183-G. Block "A", Sujat Ganj in Kanpur against his application for allotment of plot made on 10.4.1972 for which she had deposited Rs. 2,400 on 28.12.1986. When the complainant went to take the possession of the plot, she came to know that someone else had taken an illegal possession of the plot. When she neither got the vacant possession of the allotted plot, nor an alternative plot, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. Before the District Forum the petitioner agreed to allot an alternative plot but on current prices. The District Forum after hearing the parties directed allotment of an alternative plot at old prices and awarded Rs. 5,000 as damages and Rs. 1,000 as costs. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000 hence this revision petition.

It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was time barred. The plot was allotted in 1988 and the complaint was filed in 1996. As per terms of the allotment cost shall increase by 25%. The petitioner cannot be asked to allot alternative plot at old prices.

THE point on limitation has been very ably discussed by the District Forum. Since th of the amount was deposited in 1988 and the balance amount was not deposited on 23.1.1998, , during the pendency of the complaint, it does not have the petitioner to say that the complaint is barred by limitation. Had he not accepted the amount in January 1998, only then he could have considered the point of limitation. In the facts and circumstances of the case this plea has no merit. After depositing th of the amount the complainant was entitled to be allotted a plot which was not done till filing of the complaint and not even after depositing the balance in January, 1998. This is clear case of deficiency on the part of the petitioner. On the question of rate to be charged on allotment of alternative plot, we would like to follow our own order passed in the case HUDA v. R.P. Chawla, R.P. Nos. 547 and 548 of 1997 in which we have held that in case of allotment of alternative plot, the price to be charged shall be the original prices. We order the same here in the instant case. Had the complainant come in revision before us, we would have also granted interest @ 18% on the deposited amount.

WE find no ground to interfere with well reasoned orders of both the lower Fora which are upheld as they are as per our own judgment in similar situated cases. This petition is dismissed. No order on costs. R.P. dismissed.