PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs AJIT SINGH CHAWLA

-COMPLAINT filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 and State Bank of India-respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 was disposed of taking note of the statements of Jagdish Kumar, Accounts Officer, Sohan Singh, Section Officer of the petitioner authority and respondent No. 1, by the District Forum by the order dated 19.9.2000 in following terms : "Now in view of the aforesaid statement, a sum of Rs. 19,260 is admitted by the parties to be due to be paid to the complainant. We order accordingly to OP No. 1 to refund that amount of Rs. 19,260. Out of the said amount Rs. 19,260, Rs. 11,241 became payable to the complainant on 26.8.1995 whereas Rs. 8,019 became due for payment on 26.8.1998. So these amounts remained with O.P. No. 1, of whose use complainant stood deprived of. So it will be equitable and just to allow the complainant interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates. A sum of Rs. 2,000 is awarded as costs to the complainant."

IT is not in dispute that petitioner authority did not prefer any appeal against this order of the District Forum. Respondent No. 1 filed appeal claiming that the petitioner is not entitled to charge interest on the instalments till date the possession was offered on 15.3.1999 and he is also entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount for the delay in handing over possession of the plot. Order dated 11.3.2003 would show that the stand taken by the petitioner in the written version was that delay in handing over possession of the plot to respondent No.1 was caused due to the stay order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court. Since the date, month and year on which stay was granted, were not available on file the petitioner authority was ordered to file affidavit giving the necessary particulars vide order dated 11.3.2003. Petitioner authority has filed affidavit of T.K. Goyal, Estate Officer . In para 12 thereof it is averred : "That on account of the said order of status quo, the entire development work in Sector 69 was adversely affected. Although the plots concerned with the present list were not parts of the plots with regard to which the status quo order was passed, nonetheless, the petitioner authority had to initiate planning of a very large area of Sector 69 (in and around the aforesaid area subject of the status quo order) de novo with regard to roads, sewerages, infrastructure for supply of electricity and public health amenities etc."

It is, thus, admitted by the petitioner authority that the stay granted did not pertain to the plot allotted to respondent No.1. As may be seen from the order of State Commission as possession of allotted plot was offered to respondent No. 1 on 15.3.1999 the petitioner authority was held to be not entitled to charge interest on the instalments till date of offer of possession i.e. 15.3.1999 and respondent No. 1 was declared to be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a as determined by the District Forum upto 15.3.1999. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned that pursuant to the District Forum''s order dated 19.9.2000 the interest at the above rate was payable to respondent No.1 from 26.8.1995 on Rs.11,241 and from 26.8.1998. on Rs. 8,019. The State Commission has made the interest to be paid upto 15.3.1999. Considering the fact that no stay was operating qua the plot allotted to respondent No. 1 we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.