MAHINDER SINGH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition, which has been filed after a delay of 237 days, seeks to challenge the order dated 06.11.2009 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission'). By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short, 'the HUDA') - respondent no. 1 in this petition, against the order dated 17.08.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short, 'the District Forum') partly allowing the complaint of the petitioner.

(2.) The complainant's grievances before the District Forum was that the opposite parties/respondent failed to develop the necessary facilities in and around the plot of land which the petitioner purchased from the original allottee and which purchase was approved by the HUDA, vide allotment letter dated 27.08.2001. As a result, the complainant was constrained to surrender the said plot back to HUDA and accept the refund of the amount deposited by him. On consideration of the facts and evidence brought on record, the State Commission held that the petitioner/complainant had surrendered the plot and requested refund of the amount deposited by him because he was unable to pay the balance installments on account of financial difficulties. It is a clear finding of fact of the State Commission that this was the ground which the petitioner/complainant clearly mentioned in his application dated 28.11.2003 submitted to the HUDA. In this view of the matter, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the HUDA and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner. As already observed, this revision petition has been filed with a delay of 237 days. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the following has been stated: