HARYANA URBAN DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission ) in Appeal No. 882/08 is under challenge in this appeal filed by the HUDA which was the opposite party before the District Forum and the appellant before the State Commission. The alleged deficiency on the part of the HUDA was for having raised an arbitrary demand of Rs. 1,23,869 as extension fee from the complainant on the ground that after the offer of possession the complainant failed to raise construction over his plot No. 56 in residential area II at Ellenabad, District Sirsa. In complaint, the complainant has explained the circumstances why it was not possible for him to raise the construction within the stipulated period and one of the circumstances was that there was no development of the area and a high tension electricity line was passing through his plot of land and the other plots of land and unless the said high tension electricity line was re-located the complainant could not have raised the construction. These circumstances were established on the record and the District Forum, taking note of the same, allowed the complaint and quashed the demand of HUDA for extension fee to the above extent. Since the amount was deposited by the complainant with the HUDA, without prejudice, during the pendency of the complaint, the District Forum directed the Petitioner HUDA to refund the said amount to the complainant and in appeal filed by the petitioner the State Commission affirmed the said order.

(2.) We have heard Mr. R.S. Badhran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He seeks to assail the impugned order on the ground that the plot was purchased by the complainant in auction with open eyes that a high tension electricity line was passing over his plot. But no cogent evidence was led by the petitioner on record to support its contention. In any case, the complainant was not expected to raise construction till such time the area where the plot was located had been developed to a reasonable extent and the high tension electricity line re-located. In our view, the concurrent findings of the Fora below are based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and the material produced on record and the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.