Jankalyan Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs Vinod Mohite S/O Sadashiv Mohite

THERE is some confusion about the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the application for condonation of delay was allowed but there is no such order. However, for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay stands condoned.

BOTH the courts below have decided this case in favour of the complainant and against the petitioner with wee bit difference in the concluding portions. The long and short of the facts of this revision petition are these. This is an indisputable fact that the complainant Shri Vinod Mohite deposited an amount of Rs. 9,756/- with the petitioner Jankalyan Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit for plot No. 812, Sector G situated at Mahalakshmi Colony, Dewas Naka, Indore measuring 30X50 ft., total area being 1500 feet vide allotment letter dated 15.6.1984. The allegation of the complainant was that the petitioner waddled out of its commitment and refused to hand over the possession of the said plot despite the payment of entire money.

FIRST of all, the petitioner took up the plea that the sale deed of plot could be executed only after the land of the society was released by the Indore Development Authority. The case of the petitioner is that since Indore Development Authority had declared scheme No. 133 over the land of the colony, which was being developed by the Society, therefore, the execution of the sale deed of any plot handing over its possession to the complainant would be possible only after due permission from the development authority and other government departments. During the pendency of this case before the District Forum, Indore Development Authority vide its letter dated 28.4.2004 informed the District Forum that it had given ''no objection certificate'' to the petitioner in regard to scheme No. 133. The District Forum found that the hurdle in handing over of the possession of the plot stood removed.

THE second contention raised by the petitioner before the learned District Forum was that the development charges were outstanding against the complainant. The District Forum found that no evidence was led before it. During the arguments before this court, it transpires that no notice for development charges was ever sent by the petitioner. The petitioner has nowhere claimed that any such amount is outstanding. Learned counsel could not say how much development charges are outstanding. No account books, no record, or any other piece of evidence was adduced before the forum. The District Forum found no force in this contention.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of said plot within a period of three months from the date of order i.e. 17.6.2005 and execute the sale deed. It was also held that in case due to finishing of sectors, the said plot cannot be located or marked on the spot, then possession of any other plot from the remaining plots may be handed over to the satisfaction of the complainant and the sale deed may be executed for such plot in place of plot No. 812. The District Forum also imposed Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards costs.

THE State Commission further added that even in case it is found that no such plot is available in the colony, the petitioner-society would compensate the respondent and to pay him the amount equivalent to the price of land fixed by the Collector for the said area in the year 2006-2007. Again, said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of order i.e. 17.6.2005 till payment.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner half-heartedly argued that the society does not have any plot measuring 1500 ft. He contended that plots measuring 1000 ft. are available and the petitioner is ready to give the same to the complainant. He explains that due to these circumstances, the petitioner has been saddled with the above said liability wrongly as it is not possible to comply with the orders of both the foras. He did not raise any other point.

THESE arguments carry force in a measure. It is not understood where plot No. 812 has vanished. If the sale deed has been executed in favour of any other person, that sale deed must have been produced. The petitioner is playing the game of hide and seek. It cannot wriggle out of its liability after accepting the entire price for a plot measuring 1500 ft. The price of the land has increased by leaps and bounds. The complainant had applied for the plot in the year 1984. He is waiting for the plot for a long period of 28 years. It is well said that justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is also justice circumvented, justice mocked and the system of justice undermined.

FIRST of all, efforts should be made to allot same plot to the complainant within a period of 30 days from today. Secondly, if that plot is not available or has been handed over to somebody else, in that event, plot of 1000 ft. must be given to the complainant within a period of another 30 days i.e. 60 days from today. Efforts should be made to give 500 ft. of the adjacent plot or if it is not possible, in that eventuality, cost of plot measuring 500 sq. ft. or 1500 sq. ft. as the case may be, as compensation be paid to the complainant which would be equivalent to the price of land fixed by the Collector for the said area in the year 2006 and 2007. The said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of the order of District Forum dated 17.6.2005. The petitioner vide order passed by this fora dated 31.5.2012 was required to deposit Rs.3,000/- as adjournment costs. The needful was not done. The revision petition is meritless and the same is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/-.