UNIVERSAL MOTORS PVT LTD Vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.4.2004 rendered by the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh, in Execution Case No. Ex. 03/2000. By the impugned order, the State Commission directed the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 1.25 lakh to the appellant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the deposit till the date of the payment. The respondent was further directed to pay Rs.10,000 as costs.

(2.) The litigation has a chequered career. The period of litigation looms over about 30 years. It is not, however, necessary to go back to the original complaint case of the appellant. It would suffice if some of the relevant facts are mentioned, in order to amplify understanding of the controversy.

(3.) The appellant is the original complainant and had filed complaint case No. 166/SC/1992, before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant's case, in short, was that an open plot admeasuring 500 sq.mts. within the industrial area of Kanpur Industrial Zone, at Kanpur Bye-pass, behind Indian Explosives Zone Ltd. was allotted to it for consideration of Rs. 1.25 lakh. The appellant alleged that the amount was paid vide a cheque, dated 8.2.1981 which was encashed by the respondent on 31.3.1981. Though the appellant repeatedly demanded possession of the plot and completion of the necessary formalities, yet that was not done. The original plot to be allotted to the appellant was plot No. 9. Since it was not made available, the appellant filed the above mentioned complaint case. By order dated 23.9.1997, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the respondent (Kanpur Development Authority) to deliver possession of alternate plot No. 8 in the Industrial area at Kanpur Bye-pass after completing the necessary formalities, within a month. The State Commission had held that since the plot No. 9 was unavailable, and, that the respondent (KDA) had already taken decision to make allotment of plot No. 8 to the appellant, it was appropriate to mould the relief and, therefore, directed allotment of the said plot No. 8, instead of plot No. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-KDA preferred FA 160/1998. By order dated 5.9.2003, this Commission held that the order rendered by the State Commission was valid, legal and proper. It was observed