Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 506 (UTT)

Agra Development Authority v. Shahjahan Naseem

2009-10-09

P.D.SHENOY, R.K.BATTA

body2009
ORDER R.K. Batta, Presiding Member—The appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission on account of delay of 8 months, which had not been satisfactorily explained. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The explanation given for delay in filing the appeal is that the papers were sent to Property Section on 15.9.2007, and the relevant papers were tied in another pending file and as such, no action was taken till 11.4.2008. This explanation was rightly not accepted by the State Commission on the ground that the same was a mere lame excuse and it pointed out the arbitrary way of working of the petitioner. On the expiry of period of limitation a valuable right accrues in favour of the other party and the same cannot be set at naught unless sufficient cause is shown. In the case before us, the cause shown could not be considered sufficient and as such, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this account alone. 3. Even on merits, we do not find that any case has been made out by the petitioner for interference. The complainant had sought delivery of possession of House No.71 on the basis of depositing a sum of Rs. 70,821 in a scheme where the outstanding amount of cost along with interest @ 18% p.a. is payable in instalments of 15 years. The complainant had also sought directions for registration of the house on depositing the stamp papers of the denomination Rs. 32,050 and for awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000 for mental agony. The total cost of the house as per allotment letter dated 22.5.2000 along with freehold charges was Rs. 3,18,649.86 ps. The complainant had to deposit certain amount till the delivery of actual possession and the balance amount was to be deposited in 60 equal quarterly instalments within 15 years. According to the complainant, she had deposited total of Rs.70, 821 till 1.4.2002. The claim was contested by the petitioner on the ground that there was delay in payment of the prescribed amount before the date of possession on account of which, she was bound to pay penal interest. According to the complainant, she had deposited total of Rs.70, 821 till 1.4.2002. The claim was contested by the petitioner on the ground that there was delay in payment of the prescribed amount before the date of possession on account of which, she was bound to pay penal interest. The petitioner also stated that the complainant had not completed the formalities within time due to which, possession could not be delivered and the registry of the sale deed can be executed only after deposit of full cost of the allotted house. 4. The District Forum on the basis of material on record came to the conclusion that the complainant had deposited the required amount in time prior to taking physical possession and after deposit of the said amount it was the liability of the present petitioner to give physical possession of the house to the complainant, but the present petitioner had wrongfully refused to give the physical possession. The Consumer Forum, therefore, held that the present petitioner had committed deficiency in service by not delivering physical possession of the house to the complainant and the complainant was entitled to get possession of the house. However, the consumer forum further held that the complainant is not entitled to get the sale deed executed till she pays the entire cost of the house to the opposite parties. Accordingly, the District Forum directed the opposite party to give papers concerning physical possession within 30 days of the order and to execute the sale deed after calculating the outstanding amount of instalments of the house. Besides this, the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.1,500 towards litigation expenses. The order of the consumer forum is not only based upon the material on record but it is well founded and reasoned order which does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thus, even on merits, the petitioners have no case. 5. In view of the above, the revision petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000 to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Revision dismissed. ********