UPJEET SINGH BRAR Vs. PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 22.12.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh allowing appeal against the order dated 24.8.2005 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint.

(2.) Plot No. 501 in Phase-1, Urban Estate, Model Town, Bathinda was allotted to one Sukhdev Singh by Punjab Housing Development Board now respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 on 19.3.1974. It was thereafter transferred from one person to another. It was transferred in the name of Dhanad Singh, father of the petitioner/complainant on 18.1.1994. Under the Rules/Regulations of respondent No. 1, if the construction on allotted plot was not completed within three years, non-construction fee was leviable and extension could be granted for five years. Extension to the father of petitioner was granted up to the year 1997 on payment of non-construction fee. It was stated that a notice dated 3.1.2000 was issued by respondent No. 1 Authority to the father of petitioner for depositing Rs. 49,500 towards non-construction fee from 1997 to 1999. However, this notice was received back with the postal remarks that the person had died. Again, on 26.4.2000, a notice demanding Rs. 76,000 towards non-construction fee was issued by respondent No. 1. By yet another notice dated 22.3.2002, the period of construction was extended up to 30.6.2002 on payment of Rs. 1,16,450. Another letter dated 12.12.2003 followed in which the total demand made was of Rs. 1,72,800. On the death of petitioner's father the plot in question was transferred in the name of petitioner on 30.3.2005. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 decided to grant extension of time in various urban estates and for that purpose it issued a letter dated 21.3.2005 to all the Additional Chief Administrators and Estate Officers informing about the decision. An undertaking was to be given under this scheme. Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,79,500 furnished the undertaking and time for construction was, therefore, extended up to 31.12.2005. Having availed of that benefit the petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the said deposited amount with interest alleging that no non-construction fee was chargeable, amount deposited was under protest and the undertaking given was under duress. The District Forum allowed the complaint which order in appeal filed by respondents was set aside by the State Commission in terms of the order under challenge.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Manish Goel for the petitioner. Aforesaid letter dated 21.3.2005 has been extracted by the State Commission on internal page No. 3 of its order. Mr. Goel does not dispute that this letter which is the basis for deposit of said amount by the petitioner was not challenged either before the District Forum or State Commission. In this backdrop, having obtained extension up to 31.12.2005 after depositing Rs. 2,79,500 and furnishing undertaking pursuant to the letter dated 21.3.2005, the petitioner cannot turn around and seek refund of the deposited amount with interest on ground of no non-construction fee being chargeable. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.