ROURKELA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KRISHNA CHANDRA PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is of the year 1998 and was preferred/filed on 20.5.1998 assailing the order dated 9.3.1998 passed by the Sundargarh -II, Rourkela District Forum in CD. Case No. 428 of 1997 on a complaint filed by Krishna Chandra Parida against the opposite party - Secretary, Rourkela Development Authority. The District Forum after a contested hearing allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the opposite party to refund Rupees 1,000 to the complainant with interest thereon @12% per annum from 13.2.1992 till the date of actual payment and there was a direction for payment of the same within thirty days of receipt of the order.

(2.) THE complainant filed the complaint stating that he is a practising lawyer of Rourkela Bar and for owning a house for himself he applied for a plot of land in pursuance of the advertisement of the opposite party - Rourkela Development Authority (in short 'R.D.A.') under Gopabandhu Nagar Composite Housing Scheme at Chhend by depositing a sum of Rupees 1,000 towards earnest money. The deposit with the opposite party - R.D.A. was made vide Money Receipt No. 48542 dated 13.2.1992. But he was not ultimately allotted any such plot. His request and subsequent despatch of advance notice to the same Development Authorities since did not yield any result, he came to the District Forum with the complaint praying for direction for allotment of a plot and for payment of compensation.

(3.) THE opposite party entered appearance through his Counsel and filed show -cause and clarifications therein that regarding allotment of plot under the Scheme, in which the complainant had applied, the details were published in daily 'Sambad' on 17.11.1995. In the said notice, it was published that allotment of plot would be made by way of lottery on 21.11.1995 at Civic Centre, Sector -19, Rourkela at 10.15 and all the applicants were also requested therein to attend the lottery. Accordingly lottery was drawn in presence of number of applicants. Thereafter, the subsequent notice in the said daily 'Sambad' dated 23.11.1995 was published, wherein it was requested to all unsuccessful applicants to take refund of their earnest money deposits. It was further clarified that out of 381 unsuccessful applicants, 340 applicants have taken refund of their earnest money deposits. It was stated in the written version that it is not possible on the part of the R.D.A. to inform all the applicants separately regarding their application for plots. It was further contended that the complainant has never taken any steps to enquire from the opposite party, although the opposite party's office is nearer to Rourkela Bar. It was further pleaded that as the opposite party has not done anything which can be termed as deficiency in service or negligence, the complaint case filed by the complainant be dismissed.