AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD the learned Counsel on the application for restoration of revision petition.
FOR the reasons mentioned in the application for restoration, the application for restoration is allowed, and restored to its original number. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
The District Forum directed the complainant to take physical possession within 60 days from the date of order i.e., 17th January, 2000 and directed the opposite party/petitioner to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs. 85,175 from 8.4.1992 till the possession was delivered.
THE facts in brief giving rise to this revision petition are mentioned hereinafter. The complainant/respondent Mr. Pradeep Narain Srivastava and Mrs. Snehlata Srivastava applied for allotment of a middle-income group plot in terms of the advertisement published in the newspaper. The complainant deposited double amount, for immediate allotment of plot without any delay, on 8th March, 1991 and deposited Rs. 30,000 through bank draft. The complainant also started paying instalments of Rs. 3,750. Plot No. 2/641, MIG, Barra-II was allotted by the respondent to the complainant as per their letter dated 3.3.1992 and asked the complainant to pay the rest of the amount of Rs. 9,000 and lease rent of Rs. 750. It was accordingly deposited on 27th March, 1992. In all, the complainant deposited Rs. 84,175 on different dates. But despite requests, the opposite party failed to deliver possession and execute sale deed of the plot. Further, instead of 80 ft. wide road, the respondent had allotted the said plot on 40 ft. wide road. The complainant was delivered possession of plot No. D-641, MIG-II, Bara and asked to get its sale deed registered.
THE petitioner/opposite party contested the matter, inter alia, on the ground that the amount has been charged @ Rs. 510 per sq. mtr. for a plot allotted at 40 ft. wide road. It was also stated that the possession could not be delivered and sale deed could not be registered since the complainant failed to comply the formalities for registration of sale, the sale deed could not be executed. THE District Forum has held that the complainant had completed all the formalities and he approached the opposite party for delivery of possession by signing the agreement but it is the petitioner/opposite party who failed to take any step. On this ground the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service and passed the above order. The appeal was filed before the State Commission, on the specious plea that petitioner could not execute the sale deed unless a condition was incorporated in ''free hold'' deed to the effect that any future increase in the cost of land arising out of compensation payable to the farmers on acquired land would be payable by the complainant. This plea was rejected by the State Commission and the State Commission confirmed the order passed by the District Forum. In our view, the petitioner could not unilaterally change the conditions to the detriment of the complainant at a belated stage. This appears to be flimsy excuse which has been taken by the officials of the authority to cover up their deficiency for it is not the case that compensation had been enhanced or any case was pending for enhancement of compensation or the advertisement provided that the price was tentative and price would ultimately depend on increase of price of piece of land due to enhancement of compensation of the acquired land.
IN view of the aforementioned circumstances, we do not find that any interference is called for in the order passed by the State Commission. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. R.P. dismissed.