AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant/respondent purchased two plots of land in an auction held by the Collector, Rajkot in the State of Gujarat on 10.11.2005. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5,79,279/- to the Government towards purchase price of the aforesaid two plots. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, he was required to construct a residential building on the aforesaid two plots, within a period of five years. The possession of the plots was delivered to him on 05.09.2006. The complainant approached the petitioners on 14.10.2010 for the purpose of making construction on the aforesaid plots, when he was informed that in view of the amendments carried out in the development plan, the said plots could be used only for industrial purpose. The complainant thereupon made representations to the Collector and Govt. of Gujarat for the redressal of his grievance, but no relief was given to him. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum impleading State of Gujarat, Collector and Rajkot Urban Authority, which had amended the development plan, seeking allotment of alternative plots.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the complainant had not been vigilant in carrying construction, since steps for raising construction were not taken by him till the time he approached them in October, 2010. It was further stated in the reply that since development plan had been amended in the meanwhile, no permission could be given for construction of residential house on the plot sold to him.
Vide its order dated 18.08.2011, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12.02.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to allot two plots to the complainant for residential purpose. On getting possession of the residential plots, the complainant was to deliver back the possession of the plot which he had purchased in the auction. The petitioners were also directed to pay compensation quantified at Rs. 1 lakh and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before us by way of this revision petition.
Since there is delay of 325 days in filing the revision petition, an application, seeking condonation of delay , being I.A. No. 2662/2015 has also been filed by the petitioners.
As regards the condonation of delay, the application filed by the petitioners shows that certified copy of the impugned order was received by the Collector, Rajkot on 28.02.2014. This revision petition came to be filed on 16.04.2015 i.e. more than one year after the certified copy of the impugned order was collected by the Collector, Rajkot on 28.02.2014. The delay in filing the revision petition is sought to be explained by giving the following chronology of dates and events:- " 05.03.2014 The Collector, Rajkot sent the proposal for filing revision petition before National Commission to the Revenue Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. 12.03.2014 The Revenue Department, Govt. of Gujarat sent the proposal to the Legal Department. 31.03.2014 The Legal Department, Government of Gujarat, opined to file an appeal in the National Commission, New Delhi.
09.04.2014 A letter was written by the office of the Government Advocate at New Delhi calling for translated copies of the relevant documents and requested to depute officer concerned for briefing in the matter. 07.04.2014 The office of the Collector, Rajkot sent a letter to the office of the Government Advocate alongwith documents. 02.08.2014 The office of the Collector, Rajkot sent the translated copies of the documents to the office of the Government Advocate, New Delhi. 12.08.2014 The documents were sent to the Panel Advocate for drafting the petition. 22.10.2014 The draft was received by the office of the Government Advocate. 29.10.2014 The office of the Government Advocate sent the draft appeal to the Collector, Rajkot for approval. 04.04.2015 The officer attended the office of the Government Advocate at New Delhi and approved the draft. 15.04.2015 After completing all other formalities the matter was made ready for filing on 15.04.2015."
In our opinion, the aforesaid chronology does not adequately explain the delay of about ten months in filing the revision petition. We find that there is no adequate explanation for the period from 07.04.2014 to 02.08.2014, 12.08.2014 to 22.10.2014 and 29.10.2014 to 04.04.2015. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition does not stand duly explained.
That apart, on merits also we find no fault in the order passed by the State Commission. It is an admitted position that the plots in question were sold to the complainant for residential purpose. It is also not in dispute that he was to raise construction on the aforesaid plots within the period of five years. Obviously, the period for completing the construction would commence only from the date on which possession was given to the complainant. Before receiving possession, he could not have taken any step for starting construction on the plot purchased by him. The complainant applied for raising construction on the plots purchased by him, about one year before the requisite period of five years, computed from the date of receiving possession was to expire. The Rajkot Urban Development Authority, however, amended the development plan even before the expiry of the aforesaid period of five years. In our opinion, if Rajkot Urban Development Authority, which is also in instrumentality of the State, being an authority set up by the Government of Gujarat had changed the land use prescribed for the development of the plot purchased by the complainant, the Collector, Rajkot and Government of Gujarat were duty bound to allot alternative plot to him at the price at which the plots in question were purchased by him in auction. The complainant could not have been made to suffer on account of the action of the State, irrespective of whether it was taken by Collector, Rajkot or it was taken by Rajkot Urban Development Authority. In fact, we have serious doubt as to whether Rajkot Urban Development Authority could have changed the land use of a plot which Collector of Rajkot had earlier sold by way of an auction, for residential purposes.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no fault with the view taken by the State Commission. The revision petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.