HUDA Vs. PROFESSOR SOM NATH PASRICHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is delay of 86 days in filing the instant revision petition. It is averred by HUDA, the petitioner that the petitioner is a Statutory authority and delay in filing the revision petition is procedural delay. Counsel for the petitioner referred to an authority SLP No. 131 of 2206 dated 12.08.2008 titled as State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Ahmed Jaan, submitting that the Supreme Court of India was pleased to observe the following : -

(2.) HOWEVER , keeping in view of the above said facts and finding some merit in the revision petition, we condone the delay subject to the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/ - as costs, with the Consumer Legal Aid Account, within one month, failing which, Registry is directed to submit a report, to this effect, so that appropriate action may be taken against the petitioner.

(3.) NOW , the merits of the case require consideration. Plot No. 223, Sector -I, Part -I, measuring 220.00 sq.mts in Urban State Shahabad (M), Haryana, was originally allotted to one Mr. Jatinder Nath Sood, vide allotment letter dated 17.12.1986. Thereafter, it was re -allotted to Prof. Som Nath Pasricha, the respondent. HUDA, the petitioner issued notice dated 22.02.1993, wherein a demand of an amount of Rs.51,176.85 on account of enhanced compensation of the price of the land as awarded by the competent courts was made. It also transpired that plot, on demarcation, was more than 220.00 sq.mts, as per allotment letter, the petitioner, HUDA, vide notice dated 29.05.1993 sought to recover Rs.3,464.50 towards additional price of the plot.