RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I dated 15.9.2001 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that the appellant applied to the respondent (JDA) for allotment of a residential plot measuring 162 sq. mtrs. under the Kardhani Scheme (II Phase) located at Saligrampura, Jaipur by depositing an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 31.12.1996. On a draw of lot by the respondent, the appellant was allotted residential plot No. A-200 in the aforesaid scheme and was accordingly required to pay a total amount of Rs.74,639/- in four instalments. The appellant, it is alleged, deposited the aforesaid instalments by February, 1998 whereupon the respondent issued a allotment letter in favour of the appellant on 13.4.1999.

(3.) It is the grievance of the appellant that after allotment of the said plot when he visited the site he found that as per notification published by the respondent no basic facilities and amenities such as garden, drinking water, distribution of electricity, laying down of sewerage, shops, school and hospital, etc. were provided on the site. Finding that the respondent has failed to provide the basic facilities and amenities, he demanded his deposited money back with interest @ 18% p. a. vide his communication dated 27.6.1998 and 2.3.1999. The respondent instead of making available the basic facilities as notified by it; demanded that the appellant should pay the lease money, etc. vide its communication dated 13.4.1999. When the appellant wrote again to get his deposited money back vide his communication dated 4.10.1999, the respondent threatened to refund the deposited amount to him after making a deduction 5% from the total amount vide its communication dated 15.1.2000 and 26.2.2000. When the appellant wrote again to get his money back without making any deduction from the deposited money, the respondent vide its communication dated 22.4.2000 again insisted that from the deposited amount, 5% amount has to be deducted since he has failed to obtain the possession of the allotted plot of land. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the learned District Forum.