AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an application to condone the delay of 332 days in filing the appeal.
WHAT is stated in the petitioner''s affidavit is that the order copy was dispatched on 26.2.2002 by the District Forum and the last date for filing the appeal was 27.3.2002. As the petitioners offered alternate plots in view of the ban, they filed a clarification memo on 26.3.2002 which was rejected on 1.11.2002. Hence there is a delay of 332 days. We cannot accept this explanation. Filing memo which is not maintainable cannot extend the period of limitation. If the petitioners have taken a chance by filing a memo and kept quiet without filing the appeal till the fate of the memo is decided they can only blame themselves. Therefore, this explanation is far from convincing as it is easy to file some memo or other for extension of period of limitation which it does not help in condoning the delay in filing the appeals. We cannot, therefore, find ourselves comfortable to accept such pleas. Therefore the inordinate delay of 332 days cannot be condoned. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Even otherwise there are no merits in the appeal.
THE complainant is the allottee of Plot No. 8 admeasuirng 304 sq. yards located in Section I, Block ''L'' covered by Survey No. 72 situated at Rangapur village. As the complainant sponsored 29 plots in East City being developed by the appellants he is entitled to one plot free of cost for every 15 such plots. Hence plot No. 9 admeasuring 362 sq. yards was also allotted to him. In fact the appellants registered both the plots in favour of the complainant, under registered sale deeds. In fact the complainant paid the balance under enhanced rates but no development has been made so far. Even then the appellants are dodging to deliver the plots referred to above. Hence he approached the District Forum. The appellants in their written version stated that Plot No. 8 admeasuring 304 sq. yards was allotted to the complainant. Though the cost of the plot is Rs. 42,484/- the complainant paid only initial amount of Rs. 7,000/-. As the complainant sponsored 29 members to purchase plots, one free plot bearing No. 8 was allotted to him as a gift plot and a gift deed was executed and registered in his favour subject to payment of development charges. The appellants informed the complainant through their letters as early as in July, 1992 that outstanding dues of Rs. 42,484/- should be paid and at the request of the complainant he was permitted to clear developmental charges at Rs. 500/- per month in 30 instalments. The developmental charges for the gift plot are Rs. 14,477/-. He paid only Rs. 3,944/- and promised to pay the balance. The initial payment of Rs. 7,000/- was adjusted towards development charges for plot No. 8. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service.
THE complainant filed Exs. A-1 to A-10 while the opposite parties filed Exs. B-1 to B-76. On the basis of the material on record, the District Forum found that there is deficiency in service and accordingly directed to furnish the sale deed subject to payment of Rs. 42,284/- by the complainant. Hence the appeal. According to the complainant he was allotted two plots bearing Nos. 8 and 9 out of which plot No. 9 is a free plot and for plot No. 8 he has to pay only Rs. 2,444/- and as the opposite parties are refusing to receive the said amount he approached the District Forum.
UNDER Ex. A-4 letter addressed by the appellants to the complainant enclosing xerox copy of the sale deed Ex. A-8 shows that he is a member in the Narne Estates Private Ltd., and Ex. A-9 is the sale deed dated 12.8.1990 showing allotment and registering plot Nos. 8 and 9 in favour of the complainant. UNDER Ex. A-10 the complainant requested the appellants to receive the balance consideration and hand over the registered sale deed. It is admitted that plot No. 9 is a free plot for the services rendered by the complainant. The appellant addressed some letters under Exs. B-1 and B-2 etc., dated 3.12.1988 and 28.12.1988 asking him to remit Rs. 500/- per month in 30 instalments. Exs. B-4 to B-8 were addressed by the opposite parties seeking payment of balance. UNDER Ex. B-9 it is stated that the original sale deed will be dispatched after receipt of balance amount of plots, development charges and registration charges. Though the complainant has taken the plea that he was only liable to pay Rs. 2,444/- under Ex. B-16 he has stated that he paid initial payment. UNDER Ex. B-67 the opposite parties clearly stated that the complainant paid Rs. 7,000/- and he has to pay Rs. 42,284/-. Therefore, the District Forum found that the complainant has to pay this amount which is due by him.
AS already seen plots were registered but registered deeds were not handed over to the complainant by the appellants for want of payment of balance. The appellants thereafter cancelled the registered deeds. Having executed the registered deeds, it is not open to the appellant to cancel the deeds. Their right is only to collect the balance. Perhaps under law they have a first charge for unpaid purchase money but they do not have any right under law to cancel the registered deeds unilaterally when the title has already passed on to the complainants by virtue of the registered deeds executed by the appellant. In this view of the matter the order of the District Forum directing the appellants to deliver the registered deeds on payment of balance consideration of Rs. 42,284/- is unassailable. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. The complainant is directed to pay the balance as directed by the District Forum within one month from today and on such payment the appellants shall hand over the title deeds as directed by the District Forum. Appeal dismissed.