HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Sun Rise Engineering Corporation

PETITIONER /Opposite Party has filed the present revision petition challenging order dated 21.12.1998, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, ''State Commission'') in (First Appeal No. 757 of 1997) in (Consumer Complaint No. 168) filed on 8.5.1995 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, ''District Forum''). Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant was allotted Plot Nos. 28 and 29 in Sector -5, Industrial Estate at Faridabad in July, 1983 @ Rs. 109 per sq. yard. In pursuance of allotment, petitioner offered possession twice but these offers were on paper only and physical possession of the plots was yet to be given by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner has expressed its inability to handover the possession of the said plot because of existence of unauthorized encroachment by Jhuggi dwellers over the allotted plots. However, it offered to allot alternative industrial plot in Sector -59, but at prevailing market rate @ Rs. 425 per sq. metre. The petitioner is not entitled to charge the prevailing market rate. Thus, this demand made by the petitioner is illegal and unlawful. Thereafter, respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers: (a) handover actual physical possession of plot Nos. 28, 29, Sector -5, Faridabad measuring 2420 sq. yards as vacant and peaceful immediately.

(b) pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 12 lacs as damages suffered by the complainant on account of payment of rent and other inconveniences caused to the complainant for want of possession of the allotted plots in time.

(c) alternative allot and handover 1/2 acre of land in Sector -59, in lieu of the said allotted plots at the cost of Rs. 109, the old rate and as already paid by the complainant and received by the respondent by not pressing the fresh quoted rate of Rs. 425 per sq. metre.

(d) Any other relief which this Hon''ble Forum may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case apart from by interest at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum on the amount paid from time -to -time by the complainant to the respondent.

IN the written statement petitioner took the stand that the letter of allotment issued to the respondent was a provisional one and subject to completion of certain formalities. Since, respondent failed to fulfill the same, the final allotment letter was not issued. It was further stated that possession of the plot could not be delivered to the respondent on account of existence of unauthorized Jhuggi dwellers. Despite efforts made by the petitioner, it had not been possible to evict them. So, vide letter dated 29.6.1994 offer of an alternate plot in Sector -59 was made to the respondent, at the prevalent rate of Rs. 425 per sq. metre. The respondent refused to accept the same, vide his letter dated 28.7.1994. Again vide letter dated 22.3.1995, notice was issued to the respondent to accept the plot otherwise the amount deposited will be refunded. The respondent did not give any reply and instead filed the complaint. As per policy of the petitioner, the respondent has to pay for the alternative plot @ Rs. 425 per sq. metre. District Forum passed two separate orders. As per order dated 4.11.1997 passed by the President, it directed the petitioner to allot alternate industrial plot in Sector -59, NIT, Faridabad on the original rate already charged.

WHEREAS as per order dated 25.11.1997, passed by two Members of the District Forum, they directed the petitioner to allot alternate plot in Sector -59, NIT, Faridabad of the same size at the original price of Rs. 109 per sq. yard and also to pay compensation of Rs. 2.25 lacs towards the financial loss, suffered by the complainant and to pay interest at the compound rate of 10% per annum on the amount of the complainant lying deposited with the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of handing over the physical possession of the alternate plot and to pay Rs. 2,000 towards litigation cost.

BEING aggrieved by the above orders of the District Forum, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which set aside the order dated 25.11.1997 passed by the Members of the District Forum and upheld the order 4.11.1997 passed by the President; Therefore, we set aside the order dated 25th November, 1997 passed by the learned Members and uphold the order dated 4th November, 1997 passed by the learned President of the District Forum. Hence, we partly allow the appeal by awarding compensation to the complainant strictly in accordance with the decision of the learned President of the District Forum.

Now, petitioner has filed this revision against the impugned order.

NOTICE of the revision petition was issued to the respondent and thereafter, vide order dated 6.9.2000 the petition was admitted.

IT transpires from the record that thereafter this petition was not listed for about 13 years. In March, 2010, on an application filed under Right to Information Act by an Advocate, this petition was listed on 12.11.2013 with an office report in which it was stated: that the matter has not been listed after 1.11.2000 as that file got mixed up with other files. The Registry has made many efforts to trace the missing file, but the file could not be traced till date. Now, the Counsel for petitioner has filed a set of the revision petition.

Thereafter, we had called for a report from the Registry, as to what action has been taken against the delinquent officials. In reply, the Registrar stated that one Mr. C.D. Balodi, the then Assistant Registrar, was looking after the concerned section at that time, but he had passed away in January, 2007. Thus, no action could be taken.

BE that as it may, now, thereafter the file has been reconstructed.

WE have heard learned Counsel for both parties and gone through the record. On 6.12.2013, respondent filed an affidavit stating that he has already been allotted industrial plot No. 13, Sector -59,Industrial Area, freehold on leasehold basis, vide allotment letter dated 28.4.2000. Since, petitioner has complied with the direction given by the Fora below, the instant revision petition has become infructuous.

IN response, petitioner in its reply has stated, that compelled by the execution proceedings, the petitioner had issued a letter of allotment dated 28.4.2000, in which it has been categorically mentioned that the same is subject to the present revision petition, pending before this Commission. Petitioner has also admitted that possession certificate had been issued to the respondent on 2.5.2000 and conveyance deed had been executed on 11.9.2000, but the same are subject to the decision of the present petition.

IT is an admitted case of the petitioner that as per its written statement that: Despite efforts made by the answering respondent to evict the unauthorised Jhuggi dwellers, possession of the plots in question could not be delivered to the complainant.

When it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that the plots in question were occupied by unauthorized Jhuggi dwellers then why at the first instance the same were allotted to the respondent. There is no explanation to the effect. This act of the petitioner shows that it has adopted unfair trade practice in the present case. Now, when petitioner has admittedly handed over the possession of the plot to the respondent in 2000 and more than 13 years have passed, the clock cannot be turned back after such a long period. Thus, the deficiency on the petitioner in the present case is writ large.

UNDER these circumstances, petitioner cannot take shelter on the plea that possession of the plot handed over in the year 2000 was subject to the outcome of the present petition. The moment petitioner has handed over the possession of the plot to the respondent in the year 2000, the present revision petition became infructuous.

IT is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Company, : II (2011) CFJ 19 (SC) : IV (2011) SLT 303 : 2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed: Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two Fora.

IN view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in orders passed by the Fora below. There is no merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.