SYED TABSUM vs A.SEETA RAMA RAJU

THESE 2 revision petitions have been filed by the complainant - one against the order of the State Commission dated 7.2.2001 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Forum giving certain directions regarding development of the land where the petitioner had purchased the plot. Against this order of the State Commission, no revision was filed in time and there was delay of 54 days. The cause for delay was that the order of the District Forum was mixed up with the file of the husband of the petitioner and could not be traced in time. State Commission did not find any merit in such excuse and felt that the appeal was time barred. Nevertheless, State Commission went into the merit of the case and upheld the order of the District Forum. It is found that 2 cheques valued Rs. 40,000/- given by the petitioner to the respondent/opposite party were bounced. This represented part of the consideration of the plot purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner had complained of non-development of the land. District Forum after going into the whole aspect of the matter ordered as under : "In the result, we direct the opposite party to issue notice to the complainant and all the purchasers of layout in BLP No. 20 within one month from the date of this order calling upon the complainant and other purchasers to pay the developmental charges on the yardage basis as per the Govt. rates. (How much amount to be paid should be mentioned). The complainant should pay the developmental charges within one month after the intimation from the opposite party. The opposite party should develop the land within three months after receiving the contribution from the complainant and other purchasers and apply for final approved layout plan to the VUDA. The opposite party should also inform the complainant and other purchasers after the final approval of the layout. In case some of the purchasers contributed and few purchasers failed to contribute the developmental charges the opposite party has to meet the developmental charges from his own pocket and recover the developmental charges from the purchasers who failed to contribute with interest at 24% p.a., accordingly the complaint is allowed."

It would be seen that the land was in Vishakhapatnam.

AGAINST this revision (R.P. 1625 of 2002) was filed on 20.8.2002 when the impugned order was of 7.2.2001. No sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the revision petition within a period of limitation i.e. 90 days. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The second revision petition (R.P. 1626/2002) arose out of the order of the District Forum under Section 25/27 of the Act. Application filed by the respondent in terms of the order of the District Forum which contained directions, petitioner was to pay developmental charges as well as the amount of 2 cheques which had been bounced. On the application of the respondent, the order of the District Forum was "Counter not filed. For payment 18.9.2001". The amount was payable for development of the land on which plot of the complainant was situated. State Commission found that the total amount payable was Rs. 1,50,000/- and it directed that payment may be made in two equal instalments. Against this order, petitioner has come before us. There is no merit in this revision petition as well, which is dismissed. Both these petitions are dismissed. We assess a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs as the respondent had to come all the way from Vishakhapatnam.