URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST BIKANER vs MADAN SONI

-PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent has filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a plot by the petitioner, Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, bearing No. 4-E-189 admeasuring 900 sq. ft. situated in Murlidhar Vyas Nagar Extension Scheme on 10. 10. 1994 and allegedly the possession of the plot was given to the complainant. It was the case of the complainant that the plot was not developed at all, i. e. , it had deep ditches, no facility of electricity and road. Moreover, the ownership of the said plot was in dispute and the matter was pending before the Hon''ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. In these circumstances, when he could not commence construction, the complainant requested the petitioner to allot alternative plot in a developed scheme. When this was not materializing, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to return the whole amount along with interest @ 12% p. a. Aggrieved/dissatisfied with this order, two separate appeals were filed by both the parties before the State Commission. Before the State Commission, while the case of the complainant was that he was entitled to allotment of plot, the case of the petitioner was that no deficiency has been proved against him, hence the question of grant of interest does not arise. The State Commission after hearing the parties, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the complainant in part in following terms: "consequently, appeal of the appellant is hereby allowed partly and impugned order dated 19. 4. 2006 is hereby modified in the manner that respondent/appellant shall make available an alternative plot of the same size in Murlidhar Vyas Nagar Extension Scheme in place of Plot No. 4-E-189, within a period of three months from today. If any such plot would not be available, then the whole amount deposited by the complainant on different dates against the disputed Plot No. 4-E-189, Murlidhar Vyas Nagar Extension Scheme along with interest @ 12% till the date of payment. Under the circumstances of this case, parties shall bear their respective expenses. " Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us.

As per record there is delay of 76 days in filing this revision petition and admittedly, no application for condonation of delay is filed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, we find that since no application for condonation of delay is filed, this revision petition is clearly time-barred.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on merits as well and find that there is no disputing the fact that the complainant was allotted a plot which was admittedly in dispute and the matter was pending before the Hon''ble Rajasthan High Court, as reflected in the order passed by the State Commission. Before us it is the case of the petitioner that no plot is available for allotment to the complainant. In such a situation to comply with the order of the State Commission, the other alternative available is to refund the amount along with interest @ 12% p. a. It is the case of the petitioner that they are not obliged to pay the interest. It is also his case that two other revision petitions filed before this Commission, have been admitted by another Bench. On specific query, whether there was delay of 76 days, it is his reply that this was not the case there, hence we are not impressed by this plea of the petitioner. Admittedly, the basic infrastructure was not available and the plea taken before the District Forum by the petitioner, that the complainant was explained the whole situation on the ground, does not stand our scrutiny. The petitioner being a ''state'' within the meaning as enshrined in the Constitution, has to be above board and fair to the allottees. If the development was not there and plot in question was already in dispute, firstly, they should not have allotted the plot at all. This itself is a deficiency on the part of the petitioner.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission to the extent that the petitioner shall refund the amount along with 12% p. a. as per law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=iii (2004) SLT 161, decided on 17. 3. 2004. Even though, we are of the opinion that as per the judgment (supra) passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 18% p. a. but since the complainant is not in revision before us, we refrain from enhancing the rate of interest from 12% to 18%. In the aformentioned circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed both as barred by limitation and on merits as well. Revision Petition dismissed.