ROURKELA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs RUPASHREE DAS

IN the original C.D. Case the District Forum directed for allotment of a house in question in favour of the complainant within specified period. The appeal of the R.D.A. against that order vide C.D. Appeal No. 143/1999 disposed of on 24.11.2000 was dismissed and the Authority was directed to refund a sum Rs. 4,16,000/- to the complainant with 16 per cent interest per annum calculated on the amount deposited respectively on different dates.

MR. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the R.D.A. moved to recall that order in a misc. case vide Misc. Case No. 102/2001 on the ground that two important letters of the complainant indicating therein that she was interested to take the possession of the house in question could not be brought to the notice of this Commission while arguing the appeal and had it been so brought, the judgment would have been otherwise. Appreciating the case of the R.D.A. that the complainant once agreed to take possession of the house and that this Commission did not consider the materials i.e. two letters of the complainant, by our order dated 16.11.2001 we recalled our order and placed the matter for fresh hearing and disposal. C.D. Revision No. 17/2001 which was filed by the R.D.A. is against the order of the District Forum in the Execution Case No. 25/1999 in which the complainant sought to execute the order of the District Forum for not giving delivery of possession within the stipulated time. This Commission passed an interim order in that C.D. Revision Case on 22.6.2001 and the said order also has been recalled.

The present appeal is being heard afresh along with C.D. Revision No. 17/2001. We have heard Mr. Ray, the learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the N.D.A. Fact remains the complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 4,16,000/- towards the costs of the house but she has not been given possession of the house till date. It seems the R.D.A. is reluctant to refund the amount with interest as directed by this Commission. The records also do indicate that the complainant was at a particular point of time was interested to take the house in question. We have heard the Counsel for both sides. We have passed various orders in connection with this particular matter. Materials have been already considered. Fact remains that the R.D.A. have received the amount being costs of the house but not delivered possession of the house complete in all respects as per the brochure within the stipulated period for which they are liable to pay back the full costs of the house and interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum from the date of respective deposits. At one stage we had thought it, perhaps the complainant was willing to take the house for which recalled our order and we have gone for a fresh hearing. During the course of the present hearing we are informed by Mr. Ray, the learned Counsel for the complainant that the complainant is no more interested for the house and she wants refund of the amount. A memo has also been filed by Mr. Ray vide memo dated 14.11.2002 that she is no more interested to take the house. In view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal of the R.D.A. for the reasons indicated in the body of the judgment and direct that the amount of Rs. 4,16,000/- with 16 per cent interest per annum be refunded to the complainant from the date of respective deposits till payment. The order be complied within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. The execution case is also dropped. In case the Authority do not carrying with the present order, the complainant may go for fresh execution. Appeal dismissed.