HUDA vs JOGINDER SINGH

THERE is delay of two days in filing this Revision Petition beyond prescribed period of limitation for which an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. We accordingly condone the delay for the reasoning assigned in the application.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner on admission. Respondent was transferee from original allottee Sanjeev Kumar and re-allotment of plot was made on 26.5.1994 in his favour. Since notwithstanding payment of all outstanding dues no possession could be delivered by petitioner Authority even after lapse of six years, a consumer complaint came to be filed with the District Forum.

THE complaint was resisted by petitioner authority holding that though letter of allotment of plot was issued to the petitioner on 26.5.1994, complaint was filed by the Respondent on 7.8.2000. In terms of Clause 7 of HUDA policy delivery of possession was to be effected only after completion of developmental works. District Forum, however, having overruled contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner while accepting claim directed petitioner authority to pay interest after two years of deposit at the rate of 12% p.a. till delivery of possession of plot.

WHEN matter was carried in appeal by HUDA aforesaid finding was affirmed in Appeal also. The findings of Fora below making HUDA liable to pay interest on deposits in view of possession of site having not been made to the respondent even after six years cannot be said to be irrational and we accordingly affirm findings of the State Commission. The revision petition resultantly is dismissed with no order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.