SHASHI KALRA Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since possession of plot No. 212 in Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat which was allotted to petitioner from one Vinod Kumar could not be delivered due to encroachment over the site and also for litigation, consent of petitioner was obtained by respondent authority for consideration of her candidature for allotment in the next draw of lot to be held and this is not in dispute that petitioner gave due consent for allotment of alternative plot in Sector 13, 17 HUDA, Panipat. Draw of plot was held and petitioner was allotted plot No. 1916, Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat on 22.6.1999 in a communication made by respondent authority on the same terms and conditions for which original plot No. 212 was allotted to her and possession too was handed over to her on the same day. While so, petitioner chose to institute a complaint with the District Forum on 17.7.2002. While District Forum did not bestow due consideration on belated filing of compliant, State Commission rightly examined the issue in greater perspective and unsuited the petitioner for belated filing of complaint after more than 3 years from the date of allotment of alternative plot. To recapitulate, District Forum in conformity with the relief sought in the complaint, directed respondent authority to allot plot No. 0584 in Sector 25, Part - II, Panipat in lieu of plot No. 1916, Sector 13, 17, HUDA, Panipat and petitioner was asked to deposit the difference of cost between two plots in question. Though petitioner has been unsuited by State Commission, for belated filing of complaint beyond the statutory period of two years as enjoined under Section 24-A of CP Act, 1986, with sound reasonings, we may simply refer to a recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of SBI v. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries,, 2009 1 CPJ 29, from which extract of relevant observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court, we are inclined to put on record:

(2.) The provision enshrined in Section 24-A of the Act, however, provides liberty to complainant to file complaint, beyond the statutory period of limitation but with sufficient reasons shown and such delay shall be condoned for the reasons recorded in writing before entertaining complaints. Nobody has a case that petitioner ever took pains to file application for condoning delay with sufficient excuse. Petitioner as such, on this score alone, deserves to be unsuited. State Commission, rightly in our view, also considered merit of the case and on that score too, did not find merit with the case of petitioner, allotment of alternative plot bearing No. 1916, having been made by respondent authority pursuant to consent given by petitioner from which she cannot walk out comfortably.

(3.) Learned Counsel for petitioner, however, would urge that possession of plot though offered was not taken by petitioner for there being disadvantageous situation along the site and he would draw our attention to the finding of Local Commissioner affirmed by District Forum. State Commission had bestowed its consideration on the report of the Local Commissioner also and fairly held that for provision of electricity, electrical poles had been laid by Department and basic amenities were not wanting and since house had not been constructed by petitioner, the wires from electric poles had not been stretched, as theft of electric wire was not uncommon. Though learned Counsel urges, filing Interlocutory Application, to take on record the communication made by Executive Engineer, as if this be considered credible, supply of electricity in the area in question, was yet incomplete in the year 2002, though possession was shown to have been offered to petitioner sometimes in the year 1999. Even though this communication is shown to have been issued by Executive Engineer sometimes in the year 2002, that was neither brought to the notice of District Forum which rendered its finding on 9.7.2004 nor before State Commission which decided the appeal on 18.5.2010. Taking over all view of the infrastructure existing around the site allotted to petitioner, respondent authority cannot be blamed for making empty formalities in offering possession of plot to petitioner. Even after giving her consent for allotment of plot in Sector 13, 17 HUDA, Panipat, petitioner was exercising her option for another plot. State Commission has rightly negatived these contentions raised on behalf of petitioner with cogent reasonings which we are inclined to uphold. Revision petition in the circumstances, bearing no merit is dismissed, but with no order as to cost.