SECRETARY URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST BIKANER Vs. NIRUPMA SHARMA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER TIRATHRAM BHARDWAJ S/O GOPIRAM BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants in these matters booked residential plots with the appellant in Jodbeed Housing Scheme and plots in the aforesaid scheme were allotted to them way back in the year 2008. They also made payment to the petitioner in terms of the allotment letters issued to them. However, a Writ Petition was filed in Rajasthan High Court, challenging the development of the land out of which, the said plots were to be carved out, on the allegations that the said land was forest land. Vide order dated 27.04.2012, the Hon'ble High Court while granting permission to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, directed status quo to be maintained till the matter was decided by the appropriate authority. On a review application filed by the petitioner, the High Court vide order dated 05.07.2016, recalled the aforesaid order. However, in a Special Leave Petition filed by the Writ Petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that since the ownership and nature of the land had to be debated, a status quo qua the property in question should be maintained till a final decision was taken by the State Government with respect to the nature of the land. The Government of Rajasthan vide its order dated 005.2017, held that 500 Hectares of land was owned by the Urban Improvement Trust. A Writ Petition against the aforesaid order was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.08.2017. Thus, in nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the development of the plots could not be carried out on account of the stay order, granted by the Rajasthan High Court on 27.04.2012 and now, the development has since been carried out and the plots are available for allotment. His submission is that the petitioner is ready and willing to allot the plot to the complainants or alternatively, refund the principal amount paid by them without any interest. He also submits that in fact, the Consumer Complaints were filed after the said order dated 27.04.2012 had been passed by the Hon'ble High Court.

(2.) It would thus be seen that for about four years, i.e. between the year 2008 when the allotments were made and the year 2012 when the status quo order was passed, the petitioner did not undertake development of the plots. Had the development work undertaken immediately after making allotment, it would have been possible for the petitioner to complete the same before the status quo came to be passed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27.04.201 In any case, the complainants, in my view, cannot be made to suffer on account of the litigation between the petitioner and the Writ Petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court with respect to the nature of land out of which the plots were to be carved out. The allotments having been made to them way back in the year 2008, they were entitled to possession within a reasonable time period of say three years from the date of allotment. In my opinion, the complainants cannot be compelled to take possession of the plots at this belated stage when more than ten years from the allotments have already expired. It is for the complainants to decide whether they want to take possession of the plots at this belated stage or they want refund of the amount paid by them to the petitioner alongwith appropriate compensation. They having already exercised an option by seeking refund of the amount paid by them, the plots cannot be imposed upon them at this belated stage.

(3.) Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no interest should have been awarded to the complainants since the development was delayed on account of the stay order passed by the High Court, I find no merit in the contention. The petitioner having used the money deposited by the complainants, must compensate them by paying appropriate interest to them. The fora below have awarded interest @ 9% per annum which, by any standard, cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. The orders passed by the fora below therefore, do not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petitions, being devoid of any merits, are hereby dismissed.