JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KATARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, "the State Commission") dated 15.9.2016 in first appeal No.84 of 2015 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/complainant against the order of the District Forum and ordered thus:

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that in furtherance of application of the respondent complainant for allotment of plot in the development scheme "Kardhani" initiated by the opposite party, the complaint was allotted plot no. B-105 in the year 1997 vide which he had paid the entire consideration. There was a 62.46 meter vacant plot adjacent to the plot of the respondent complainant which was allotted by the petitioner to the complainant vide letter dated 09.02.2001. Pursuant to the said letter, the complainant deposited demanded consideration amount of Rs.39,928/- vide challan no. 16059 dated 27.02.2001. Subsequent to the said deposit, the opposite party sent another demand letter dated 11.07.2006 for Rs.48,533/- in respect of "Shahari Jamabandi" ( upto 3/07), interest of Jamabandi and punargrahan amount. The said amount was deposited vide challan no. 17182 dated 26.10.2006. A further demand of Rs.17,005/- was made by the petitioner vide letter dated 16.09.2008 for pre-possession, urban development charges and interest. The said amount too was deposited vide challan dated 22.09.2008. Thereafter, the complainant wrote several letter respectively dated 27.10.2006, 09.06.2008, 12.09.2008 and 22.09.2008 to the opposite party but opposite party failed to respond. Ultimately, the complainant personally visited the office of the opposite party for execution of sale deed of said plot in his favour and the opposite party demand a sum of Rs. 9110/- for lease deed, charges as well as stamp fee. The complainant deposited the said amount. Despite that, the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed. Instead, vide leter dated 08.05.2010, a fresh demand of Rs.2,48,906/- was issued by the petitioner opposite party on the plea that Land and Property Disposal Committee of the petitioner Authority in its 67th meeting had taken a decision to charge double the rate of residential reserved rate from the complainant for increased area of 62.46 meter. Being aggrieved of unreasonable demand, the respondent filed a consumer complaint. The consumer complaint was resisted by the petitioner Authority justifying the demand in view of decision taken by Land and Property Disposal Committee in its meeting dated 26.08.2010.

(3.) The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence did not find merit in the complaint and dismissed the complaint.