HUDA Vs. VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent was allotted residential plot No. 154 in Sectors 8 and 9, Ambala, measuring 144 sq mtrs. in the year 1989 by petitioner-authority for tentative cost of Rs. 51,290. Possession of plot in question, it is stated, was offered on 15.9.1994. However, respondent after surrender of plot in question to petitioner, sought refund of deposit. Petitioner after deduction of 10% of total tentative cost, refunded residual amount to respondent. Then, Consumer Fora was knocked. Both District Forum and State Commission gave adverse finding to petitioner about deduction of 10% of total estimated cost, relying on decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of HUDA & Anr. v. Kewal Krishan Goel & Ors., 1996 AIR(SC) 1981

(2.) Though it is contended on behalf of petitioner that it was only after accomplishment of development work and possession of plot having been offered that demand for enhanced cost as a fall out of acquisition proceeding was raised that respondent sought refund of deposit. Be that as it may since HUDA was not within its authority to make 10% deduction of total estimated cost and what was required of them was to make deduction of 10% of earnest money, deduction of 10% of estimated cost was patently erroneous. In view of ratio of decision of Hon ble Apex Court, finding of State Commission cannot be said to have suffered infirmity. Revision petition in the circumstances is dismissed with no order as to costs.