LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHIV SARAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum -I, Lucknow whereby the Lucknow Development Authority was directed to handover possession of the Plot No. D -1/143, Sector -F, Sitapur Road to the allottee complainant Sri Shiv Saran Gupta within one month and also pay the interest @ 18% per annum on the sum of Rs. 38,582 deposited by the complainant upto 8.1.1992. The appellant Lucknow Development Authority filed the appeal on the ground that initially the complainant himself committed default in making payment of the stipulated price and when the price had been paid in full he did not bother to approach the authorities and ask for execution of the sale deed or for handling over the possession over the plot.

(3.) THESE allegations have been denied by the learned Counsel for the respondent and it has been contended with reference to the record that after the entire sum of Rs. 38,582 had been deposited upto 7.1.1992, the Development Authority took about four years to execute the sale deed and the possession over the plot had not been handed over even upto the date of the judgment in appeal. The Development Authority has relied upon certain letters on record whereby communication was sent to the complainant to come and take possession. However, all these letters were written in the year 2002 and not even one letter has been filed or relied upon to prove that any attempt was made by the Lucknow Development Authority to handover possession between the year 1985 upto the date of the judgment. In this context, it would also be relevant to mention that it is admitted to both the parties that the possession of the aforesaid plot has now during the pendency of this appeal been handed over to the complainant on 4.10.2004. In this way out of the two directions i.e. one regarding handing over of the possession and the other for payment of interest, the former has been carried out and the complainant now has no grievance so far as his possession over plot in question was concerned.