Shriom Sharma vs Estate Officer

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member

Heard the petitioner in person. Perused the material on record.

The dispute relates to withdrawal of application for allotment and consequences thereof.

The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 15.03.2018 dismissed the complaint:

From the pleading and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has applied on 24.4.2014 for a plot vide application mentioned above and deposited Rs. 1,24,000/- as 10% earnest money. It is also not disputed that the last date of the scheme was 28.4.2014 and the same was extended by the OP upto 30.5.2014. The OP has produced in his evidence, copy of broucher including terms and conditions as Ex.OP-3. From Ex. OP-3, it is clear that interest @ 5.5% per annum on the amount of earnest money for the period beyond six months of the closing date of the scheme shall be paid by HUDA, if the draw is not held and subsequently earnest money is not refunded within 6 months from the closing date of the scheme. This fact is not denied by the complainant.

It is the case of the complainant that he had downloaded on 3.5.2014 on the website of HUDA that the last date was 28 th April, 2014 but you have extended the closing date now to 30th May, 2014, so the complainant want to withdraw his application and also stated that you have to give me interest for my Rs. 124000/- for one month or kindly tell me the procedure how can I withdraw my application as is clear from Ex.C-4/Ex.OP-4. The complainant alleged that lateron he had dropped the idea of withdrawal. So, the complainant is entitled for a 4 Marla plot of the HUDA.

From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the complainant himself has withdrawn his application. This fact is clear from the document Ex. C-4/ Ex.OP-4. Therefore, now the complainant cannot say that he has not withdrawn the same and the complainant had changed his idea of withdrawal. If the complainant has changed his idea of withdrawal, then he might had uploaded the same on the website of OP. But the complainant has not do so. Even otherwise, also the complainant has not produced such evidence on the file vide which it can be said that the complainant had changed his idea of withdrawal and his application be considered for the draw of lots. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OP has committed no wrong in treating the application of the complainant as withdrawn on his request.

It is pertinent to mention here that the amount deposited by the complainant has been refunded with interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum as per the terms and conditions of the broucher. The amount of Rs. 1,24,000/- with interest of Rs. 8109/- for a period of about 1.18 years has been deposited in the account of the complainant after deducting the TDS of Rs. 811/- i.e. the amount of Rs. 1,31,298/- has been deposited. The fact of refund of the amount of complainant has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we found no force in the contention of complainant that OP be directed to allot a HUDA plot of 4 Marla to him. Hence we found no deficiency on the part of the OP.

Thus , as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we find no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

(paras 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the District Forum's Order)

The complainant appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard the complainant / appellant in person, considered the evidence and through its Order dated 03.05.2018 dismissed the appeal in limini :

Against the impugned Order, the complainant-appellant has filed the present appeal before us reiterating the same submissions, as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. It is evident from the record that the complainant himself was not serious in pursuing his application for draw and wanted to withdraw the initial deposit to invest the same in some other project. Therefore, if the HUDA-OPs did not include the complainant's name in the draw, there was no deficiency in service on their part. In these circumstances, we fully endorse the well reasoned and detailed order passed by the learned District Forum and dismiss the appeal of the complainant in limini.

(para 4 of the State Commission's Order)

The complainant has filed the instant revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 03.05.2018 of the State Commission.

We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-considered and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We note in particular the extracts of the respective appraisals / observations made by the two fora quoted, verbatim, in paras 3 and 4 above. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.

The revision petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.

A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the opposite party / respondent by the Registry within ten days.