JUDGMENT Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, J.: - Pursuant to order dated 04.02.2013, costs of Rs.10,000/- are said to have been deposited with the Legal Services Authority, Haryana. 2. Written statement of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa, has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in Court, and is taken on record. 3. Facts of this case are that the petitioners purchased plot No.78, situated in Mandi Township, Dabwali, in open auction on 11.12.1973 for a sum of Rs.14,600/- in the name of the second petitioner, i.e. Prem Chand and his brother Ashok Kumar. Petitioner No.1 is a third brother. All installments towards payment of the auction price are stated to have been paid along with interest and costs etc. by 19.03.1977. 4. Uptill here the facts are not denied by the respondents. However, the date of allotment is given to be different by the petitioners and the respondents, with the petitioners strangely saying that the date of allotment is 15.03.1978, whereas the respondents have annexed the allotment letter dated 25.03.1974, as Annexure R-1 with the reply. Subsequently, in a family settlement, the share of the joint auction purchasee, i.e. Ashok Kumar, came to be settled in favour of petitioner No.1, i.e. Suresh Kumar. Petitioner No.2, Prem Chand, continued to hold his share. The said family settlement is stated to have been finally settled by Civil Court Decree dated 16.01.1987. 5. In the year 1992, the petitioners applied for change of name in the record of HUDA from that of Ashok Kumar to petitioner No.1 (Suresh Kumar) and deposited the requisite fee, but the needful was not done and, vide letter dated 02.02.1993, the respondents asked petitioner No.1 to come present with regard to his application for transfer of the plot, as signatures of petitioner No.2 and Ashok Kumar, given on the transfer application, allegedly did not match with those on the case file. Thereafter, vide letter dated 13.09.2000, addressed to both the original allottees, they were informed that a sum of Rs.14,825/- is outstanding against the plot on account of non-construction of any building thereupon. The letter (Annexure P-1) further directs that the amount be paid immediately, “so that action be taken for delivering the possession to you.” 6. Thereafter, vide letter dated 13.09.2000, addressed to both the original allottees, they were informed that a sum of Rs.14,825/- is outstanding against the plot on account of non-construction of any building thereupon. The letter (Annexure P-1) further directs that the amount be paid immediately, “so that action be taken for delivering the possession to you.” 6. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa, in the year 2003, with a prayer to hand over the possession of the plot and to pay interest on the deposited amount and for further compensation also. After hearing parties, the learned District Forum vide order dated 23.04.2007 (Annexure P-2 with the petition), allowed the complaint, holding therein that physical possession of the vacant plot was never delivered to the complainants (present petitioners) and as such the demand for Rs.14,825/- on account of non-construction was completely unjustified. It was further held that the present respondents, HUDA, had retained the deposited amount for 33 years without handing over possession to the allottees, therefore, no penal interest could have been foisted upon them and, as a matter of fact, the complainants (present petitioners) would be entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment, pain and agony. On account of escalation charges, costs of Rs.3,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9%, from the date of deposit till the date of realization, were also imposed. 7. Against the said order of the District Forum, the respondents herein preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which allowed the appeal on 01.12.2011 on the ground of jurisdiction, holding therein that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Amarjeet Singh and others, [2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 1399 : 2009(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1058 (SC) : 2010(1) Law Herald (CPJ) (SC) 37] : (2009) 4, SCC 660, the dispute would not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer Dispute’ and as such the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. 8. Amarjeet Singh and others, [2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 1399 : 2009(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1058 (SC) : 2010(1) Law Herald (CPJ) (SC) 37] : (2009) 4, SCC 660, the dispute would not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer Dispute’ and as such the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. 8. The present petition has consequently been preferred by the petitioners seeking therein that the possession of the plot in question be delivered to them and the conveyance deed be executed in their favour and escalation charges for construction on the plot be also granted along with 12% interest on account of non-delivery of possession to them. They further pray that penal costs of Rs.14,825/-, demanded vide letter dated 13.09.2000, be also quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the parties, reiterated the submissions as taken in the pleadings. In addition, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from the Estate Officer, who is also present in court as per the last order, has submitted that the plot cannot be allowed to remain with the petitioners on account of non-construction on the same in all these years. 10. We are not at all impressed by this argument of the respondents, in view of the fact that, firstly and foremost, it is the admitted position of the respondents, as evident from the impugned letter dated 13.09.2000, that the possession was never delivered to the petitioners till then, right since 1974. Obviously, if possession was admittedly never delivered to the petitioners till 13.09.2000 at least, the question of their constructing upon the plot could not have arisen. Hence, on principle, the imposition of a penal cost of Rs.14,825/- on account of non-construction, is wholly and completely unjustified. Strangely, of course, the petitioners also never knocked at the doors of any Court for delivery of possession till 1992, for 19 years. 11. Though in the reply filed today, it has been stated that the allottee has not constructed within the 15 years time granted for such construction as per policies of HUDA; this plea, in any case, as we have already held above, does not lie in the mouth of the respondents since, in the impugned letter dated 13.09.2000, they have taken a categorical stand that the physical possession is still to be delivered. The only communication that the respondents have admitted to have been made to the petitioners, is that, after the application for transfer of name of one of the allottees came in 1992, petitioner No.1 was asked to remain present in the office of the Estate Officer vide the letter dated 02.02.1993. It is pertinent to mention that even this letter, which is annexed as Annexure R-2 with the reply, does not say a word about non-construction on the plot or that the plot was liable for resumption on that count. 12. No doubt, as per clause 11 of the letter of allotment 25.03.1974, the transferee was required to complete the building within two years from the date of issue of the allotment letter and the time limit was extendable by the Administrator (of the then New Mandi Township) by six months, upon satisfaction that the failure to complete the building was due to reasons beyond the control of the transferee; and after the said period of six months, sanction of the State Government was required, on an application for extension of time. Further, as per clause 19 of the said allotment letter of 1974, failure to observe any of the conditions of the letter, including failure to construct upon the plot within the time specified, the plot would be resumed and deposit forfeited. 13. Despite the above conditions, as already stated hereinabove, no notice for resumption of the plot in question had ever been issued to the petitioners/Ashok Kumar, the original co-allottee with petitioner No.2. This fact has not been denied by the respondents even on a specific query put in this regard, to learned counsel, as also the Estate Officer. Hence, there is no ground for us to go into that issue at all. If the respondents had any right for resumption on account of non-construction in the past almost 40 years, obviously they would have exercised their right a long time ago. On the other hand, they have only joined issue with the petitioners on account of the non-payment of Rs.14,825/- for non-construction on the plot, and that too, upon an application moved by the original co-allottee for transfer of his share in the plot to his brother, the present petitioner No.1. On the other hand, they have only joined issue with the petitioners on account of the non-payment of Rs.14,825/- for non-construction on the plot, and that too, upon an application moved by the original co-allottee for transfer of his share in the plot to his brother, the present petitioner No.1. Therefore, the oral plea taken for the first time today, in Court, with regard to resumption, is completely and straight out of the hat, and is, therefore, rejected. 14. On the other hand, however, there is also nothing on record to suggest that there has been any grievance made by the petitioners on account of non-delivery of such possession other than the application for transfer made in 1992, and the consumer complaint filed on 06.08.2003. Obviously, both parties are remiss one way or the other. 15. Mr. B.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that today, despite the fact that the petitioners were not liable to pay the demanded amount of Rs.14,825/-, as demanded vide the impugned letter dated 13.09.2000; still, in order to settle the issue once and for all, the petitioners are willing to pay the said amount to ensure that they can take possession and construct upon the plot. 16. In this view of the matter, keeping in view all facts and circumstances, including the fact that the petitioners and respondents were both silent on the issue for so long, we dispose of this writ petition with the directions that the petitioners would pay Rs.14,825/- to the respondents immediately forthwith and, in any case, not beyond two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the plot in question, if not already handed over, shall be handed over to the petitioners within a period of one month of the payment, i.e. in a total period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners, upon such delivery, shall be required to complete construction within a period of one year of such handing over of possession to them, failing which the respondents would be within their rights to initiate resumption or other proceedings as they deem best, as per law. 17. This petition is disposed of with the above directions, with no order as to costs.