Estate Officer Huda vs RAM DASS

Revision petition no. 2057 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 in first appeal no. 1835 of 2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( ''the State Commission '').

FACTS of the case as gleaned from the order of the District Forum are that the respondent/ complainant was the owner and in possession of land measuring 5 marla, i.e., 5/160 share of 16 kanal land comprised in khasra no. 13/19/2 and 20/2, 22/1 situated at Patti Afghan, Panipat. The above said land of the respondent/complainant which was in the shape of a plot situated in Devi Lal Colony, Panipat was acquired by State of Haryana for carving out Section 12, HUDA, Panipat. The Government of Haryana decided to allot six marla plot each in Sector 11 -12 HUDA, Part II, Panipat to the residents of Devi Lal Colony, Panipat whose land was acquired. Later on, in a meeting held on 03.02.2000 under the Chairmanship of petitioner/ opposite party no. 2, it was decided that due to non -availability of plot of six marla, plots of four marla available in the above said sector be allotted to the eligible persons. Accordingly, plots of 4 marla each were allotted to 19 persons but no plot was allotted to the respondent/ complainant despite the fact that he was eligible for the same and had deposited EDC amount of Rs.17,850/ - vide receipt no. 160508 dated 12.10.2006. The respondent/ complainant moved several applications and also issued legal notice dated 23.09.2008 to petitioner/ OPs to allot him a plot of 4 marla but to no effect and hence this complaint. It was the case of the respondent/ complainant that failure of OPs to allot him a plot of marla amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The respondent/ complainant prayed for a directions to OPs to allot a plot of 4 marla in Sector 11 - 12, Part II, Panipat to him as per HUDA policy by accepting the cost of the plot and adjusting the amount already deposited by him with interest. The respondent/ complainant also claimed Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5,500/ - as cost of litigation. On notice of this complaint, the petitioner/ opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply stating that the Director, Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Chandigarh vide letter no. U E III/ 87/ 1053 dated 09.04.1987 had prepared and circulated a list of persons eligible for the allotment of the plot of category in question under oustees scheme. That the name of the respondent/ complainant neither existed in the said list of 20 persons nor in the award list of the Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula, which was circulated vide no. 9776 dated 18.10.2006. The respondent/ complainant had been shown owner of 5/160 share of 16 kanal land comprised in Khasra no. 13/1, 19/2, 20/2 and 21/1 as per the copy of sale deed no. 510 dated 07.03.1982. The respondent/ complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.17,850/ - on his own without any demand or advice from the officials of Petitioners/ OPs and HUDA. Petitioner/ OPs have denied all other averments made in the complaint and also denied any deficiency in service on their part.

WHILE allowing the complaint, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat ( ''the District Forum '') vide its order dated 28.06.2010 observed as under: "In view of our above discussion, the present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the complaint with the direction to OPs to allot a plot of four marla to the complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the complaint with the direction to OPs to allot a plot of four marla to the complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the complaint with the direction to OPs to allot a plot of four marla to the respondent/complainant in Section 11 - 12, Part II, HUDA, Panipat. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,200/ - is allowed to the respondent/ complainant to be paid by OPs ".

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners/ opposite party nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission in their order dated 12.10.2012 while dismissing the appeal observed as under: "Admittedly, the land of the respondent/complainant was acquired for carving out plots in urban estate, Panipat. Letter Ex C6 dated 15.09.2006 issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula established that the name of the respondent/complainant was recommended for allotment of a plot of four marlas under the oustees policy. It has also come on the record that the respondent/ complainant had deposited Rs.17,850/ - with the petitioner/ OPs. It has also come on the record that 19 other persons, whose land was acquired by the Government of Haryana, have already allotted plots. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the respondent/ complainant is entitled for a plot under the oustees policy in view of law settled in Jarnail Singh and other vs State of Punjab and Ors (P&H) (F B), 2011 (1) R C R (Civil) 915, 2011 AIR, (Punjab) 58: 2011 (2) ICC 420. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed ".

HENCE , the present revision petition. Along with the revision petition an application for condonation of delay of 15 days has been filed. However, as per the office report, there is a delay of 117 days in filing the present revision petition. The free copy of the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 was made available to the petitioner on 26.10.2012 and the revision petition was filed on 21.05.2013. The reasons given for the condonation of delay are as follows: The impugned order was passed on 12.10.2012. The certified copy of the impugned order was prepared by the registry of the State Commission on 26.10.2012 and the same was delivered on 05.02.2013. After getting the certified copy by the petitioner/ department approached to higher authorities to file the revision petition before the National Commission. Due to transfer of the dealing persons and the concerned officer the petitioner/ department got the permission in the month of April 2013. Thereafter the same were forwarded to the counsel for preparing the revision petition.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case carefully. Counsel for the petitioner could not say as to who received the free copy of the impugned order which was despatched on 26.10.2012 as also when was it received. The date on which they have applied for the duplicate copy has also not been given. The certified/ true copy of the order was made available and received on 05.02.2013 and not the free copy of 26.10.2012. The reasons given for the day today delay are extremely vague and there is no mention as to who received the order on 05.02.2013 and who put the file and who was the competent authority. The name of the dealing person who supposedly got transferred has also not been given nor his designation. Permission to file the revision petition is stated to have been received only in the month of April 2013. No specific dates have also been given to explain the delay from 05.02.2013 to 21.05.2013. The petitioner has failed to give reasons for the day -to -day delay and to provide ''sufficient cause '' to condone the delay of 117 days. This view is further supported by the following authorities: Recently, Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV(2011) CPJ 63(SC) has observed as under; "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras ".

Further, Hon ''ble Supreme Court in "M/s Advance Scientific Equipment Ltd. & Anr. Vs. West Bengal Pharma & Photochemical Development Corporation Ltd. (Appeal (Civil) Nos. 17068 -17069/2010, decided on 9 July 2010) wherein it observed inter alia, as under; "We are further of the view that the petitioners '' venture of filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition even for a single day because an effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act and the orders passed by the State Commission did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction "

In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. "

ACCORDINGLY , we find that there is no ''sufficient cause '' to condone the long delay of 117 days in filing the present revision petition. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/ - (rupees ten thousand only). Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - to the respondent directly by way of demand draft and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/ - be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account " of this Commission within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 13th December, 2013 for compliance.