CAPT K S TOOR vs H U D A

-CHALLENGING in this revision is to the order dated 18. 1. 2008 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula disposing of appeal by modifying the order of a District Forum dated 20. 6. 2003 that the respondent authority is liable to pay interest @ 12% p. a. on the deposited amount from the date of respective deposits after two years of allotment of the original plot till 24. 11. 2000. The District Forum had allowed the petitioner''s complaint with direction to the respondent to allot an alternate plot in the same sector or in adjoining sector or in Sectors 27, 28 and 43 if plot No. 490-D in Sector -12a is not fully developed and pay interest @ 18% p. a. on the deposited amount from the respective dates of deposits till delivery of possession of the plot.

ONLY few facts need be noticed for deciding this revision. Petitioner/complainant was allotted plot bearing No. 462 in Sector 12 A, Gurgaon in the year 1986. However, due to litigation the respondent/opposite party-authority was unable to handover possession of this plot and, therefore, alternate plot No. 61 in Sector-9 was offered to the petitioner which he declined to accept on ground of its not being suitable. Thereafter, alternate plot No. 490-D in Sector 12a was allotted and intimation was sent to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1312 dated 20. 3. 2001. Petitioner failed to convey acceptance of this plot to the respondent authority. Petitioner who had paid even the enhanced price on account of land compensation, thereafter filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the respondent. Complaint by the District Forum and appeal by the State Commission were disposed of in the manner noticed above. Main thrust of argument advanced by Mr. R. L. Srivastava for the petitioner is that reduction in rate of interest from 18% to 12% p. a. by the State Commission is unjustified and as the petitioner has given consent for allotment of another plot No. 466 in Sector 12a as approved by the Chief Administrator, HUDA after passing of the order under challenge the order dated 18. 1. 2008 deserves to be set aside. As may be seen from the impugned order, the State Commission has taken note of the facts of present case as also the ratio in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=iii (2004) SLT 161=2004 (5) SCC 65; in reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 12% p. a. We are not inclined to take a view different from that taken by the State Commission in the matter.

Impugned order notices that it is established on record that the area wherein plot No. 490-D is located, was fully developed. In view of said order of District Forum, the petitioner is entitled to allotment of plot other than No. 490-D only if it is not fully developed. Having considered the finding returned to the said effect by the State Commission, the petitioner is entitled to possession of only above plot No. 490-D. On ground of petitioner having given consent for allotment of yet another plot No. 466, no fault can be found in the order of State Commission. For the foregoing discussion, the revision is dismissed being without merit. Revision Petition dismissed.