MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SANTOSH

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.9.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 337/1999.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a plot in Shatabdi Nagar Scheme after depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 12.12.1989. THE complainant was also informed to deposit the rest of the amount in instalments. THE complainant in compliance of the letter of Meerut Development Authority deposited a sum of Rs. 1,91,258/-. Initially the cost of the plot was intimated as Rs. 1,44,000/- but later on it was increased to Rs. 1,72,800/-. THE complainant was allotted a plot No. 5A in Sector VII. THE complainant has not been given possession of the plot in question and there is no development on the spot. THEre is no electricity, water connection, sewage line etc. It is further alleged that by letter dated 18.12.1998 the complainant was informed that on account of non-development work of the plot the possession cannot be given. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the agriculturists did not hand over possession of the land in dispute and has filed a writ petition. The complainant was informed by letter dated 18.12.1998 to take possession of another plot in a developed scheme for which her consent was required. There is no deficiency on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority.

Learned District Forum, on the basis of evidence filed on behalf of the parties, came to the conclusion that there is deficiency on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority and directed the opposite party to refund the entire deposited amount along with 15% per annum interest from the respective date of deposit till the date of payment within a period of one month. Cost of Rs. 500/- was also awarded.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party Meerut Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the file will go to show that even on the assertion of the Meerut Development Authority, the possession of the plot could not have been given on account of possession of the land by farmers. A litigation is pending between these farmers and the appellant, Meerut Development Authority, regarding the possession of the land. When the complainant had not been handed over the land by the Meerut Development Authority, there is deficiency in service. When the land was in possession of other persons and its possession had not been transferred to the appellant, Meerut Development Authority, then the Meerut Development Authority should not have carved out the plots and should not have asked for the money. The Development Authority was litigating for taking possession of the land even after allotment of the same to the complainant and others. Thus we find that there is deficiency on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority and the order of the learned District Forum is perfectly alright and no interference is required. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent. Compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from today. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.