P S Sawhney vs Chief Executive Officer -Cum -Secretary, Himachal Pradesh

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 14 -06 -2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in R.P. No. 72/2012 P.S. Sawhney Vs. Chief Executive Officer -cum -Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Authority, by which while disposing revision petition directed opposite party to allot plot, subject to payment as indicated in the order.

BRIEF facts of the case are that on complainant/petitioner applied for purchase of plot of 210 sq. mtrs. area for Rs.1,70,000/ - to the petitioner/respondent in the year 1994 but plot could not be allotted. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint. Learned District Forum vide order dated 30 -05 -2003 directed opposite party to allot next plot available with opposite party on payment of market value by the complainant. This order was affirmed by learned State Commission and revision petition filed by the complainant was also dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 23 -03 -2006. After dismissal of appeal by State Commission, opposite party by letter dated 15 -05 -2004 offered plot no. 16 B measuring 174.71 sq. mtrs. for Rs.3,63,000/ - and plot no. 16 C measuring 116.30 sq. mtrs. for Rs.2,42,000/ - subject to reply within 15 days. Complainant did not respond within 15 days'' time but by letter dated 11 -09 -2004 sent draft of Rs.1,65,000/ - to the opposite party mentioning that demanded money was much higher than the quoted price. After dismissal of revision petition by this Commission, complainant filed execution petition before District Forum for execution of order dated 30 -05 -2003. Opposite party resisted execution petition and submitted that as complainant failed to respond to offer within stipulated period, order of District Forum had become unexecutable. It was further apprised that these plots have been allotted to the Residents Welfare Association. Learned District Forum while disposing execution application observed that in case plot no. 16 A, B and C are still lying vacant, they shall be offered to the complainant at prevailing market rate and in case plots are not vacant than a plot at Basal or Kandaghat may be allotted. Complainant filed revision petition against this order and learned State Commission vide impugned order directed opposite party to allot plot no. 16 B measuring 174.71 sq. mtrs. to the complainant on payment of Rs.3,63,000/ - along with 12% p.a. interest, against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD petitioner in person and counsel for the respondent and perused record. Petitioner submitted that he was entitled to allotment of plot for Rs.63,000/ - even then learned State Commission committed error in directing allotment of plot on payment of Rs.3,63,000/ -, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

ADMITTEDLY , complainant in pursuance to opposite party''s advertisement was ready and willing to buy plot measuring 210 sq. mtrs. for Rs.1,70,000/ - in the year 1994. As plot was not allotted, District Forum while allowing complaint directed opposite party to allot plot on payment of market value of the plot. By no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that market value of plot decreased from Rs.1,70,000/ - in the year 1994 to Rs.63,000/ - in the year 2004. Learned State Commission rightly observed that judicial notice can be taken that in this period prices of land skyrocketed.

PETITIONER submitted that as per Land Acquisition Act, market value of the land was to be ascertained, which was Rs.63,000/ - at the time of filing execution petition. This argument is devoid of force because market value of the plot was not to be assessed as per Land Acquisition Act but market value was to be assessed not as per the rate which was prevailing in the market at the time of allotment.

PETITIONER further submitted that as plot was offered subsequently to the Residents Welfare Association for Rs.63,000/ - this should be taken as market value. This submission is also devoid of force because offer was made to the Welfare association of the colony for achievement of objectives of the association for common welfare of the residents of the society and at that price plot cannot be allotted to petitioner.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.