AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE have heard Mr. Rajat Rathee, learned counsel for the petitioner.
AT the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 132 days in filing this revision petition. In support of his application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has given the following reasons in paras 2 and 3 of his application:- "2. That it is humbly submitted that there is some delay in filing the present Revision Petition as the counsel for the petitioner who appeared before the Hon''ble State Commission had not inform the dismissal of the first appeal of the petitioner and later on when the petitioner inquired about his case, he found the same was dismissed on 21.07.2011. After the dismissal of his first appeal, petitioner, and family members were in shock and could not arrange the documents and advocate to file the present Revision Petition before this Hon''ble Court. The delay caused in filing this application is bonafide and deserves to be condoned. 3. That the delay is not deliberate or intentional. The delay was caused due to strain and the petitioner has a very good case."
THE explanation given by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in question is vague and general and could hardly be regarded as satisfactory. We are therefore not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 132 days in filing this revision petition and hence this revision petition can be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.
COMING to the merits, it is seen that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging wrong demarcation of his plot no. 55-P, Sector-13, Bhiwani by the OPs, who are respondents herein on account of which the complainant had to demolish the construction over the plot because of which he suffered huge financial loss for which the complaint in question was filed demanding a compensation of Rs.90,000/- on account of cost of construction, mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Finding no substance in the complaint, the District Forum vide its order dated 06.06.2011 dismissed the same. On appeal against this order by the petitioner, the State Commission, Haryana also dismissed the appeal as well as the complaint. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal has made the following observations in the impugned order:- "While disposing of the complaint, the District Forum did not find any substance in the complaint and dismissed the same by observing in para No.7 of the impugned order as under:- "In our view, the argument of the ld. Counsel for the respondents has merit because from the perusal of record there is nothing on record to prove that complainant had ever made any complaint with regard to alleged wrong demarcation. Further more, the complainant has miserably failed to produce cogent and convincing evidence to prove that any order was passed by the respondents for demolition of alleged unauthorized construction. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondents did not pass any order for re-demarcation of the plot. The allegations regarding admission of wrong demarcation by respondent No.3 is also false and baseless because the complainant himself admitted that C.D. in this regard was prepared but from the perusal of record the complainant has miserably failed to produce the C.D. in question in the shape of evidence. So question of loss on account of wrong demarcation does not arise. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation on any count."
Hence, this appeal. Having gone through the impugned order as well facts and circumstances of the case and are of the view that in the instant case, complainant has miserably failed to prove the wrong demarcation of his plot by the opposite parties therefore, we feel that District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint vide impugned order, which does not call for any interference in this appeal."
IN the circumstances, we find that based on concurrent finding of facts, both the Fora below have dismissed the complaint. Nothing has been placed before us, which would persuade us to differ from the concurrent orders of the Fora below. We do not see any merit or substance in this revision petition. We, therefore, dismiss it in limine both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits with no order as to costs.