2024 (12) TMI 788 - SC - Indian Laws

Direction to appellant to handover possession of the plot in question to the respondent within three weeks from the date the amount is paid along with interest to the Indore Development Authority - default in payment and subsequent legal actions taken by the respondent - HELD THAT - In the present case, the respondent at the first instance opted to file a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and a favourable order was also passed in his favour on 01.08.2006 directing the respondent to pay the balance outstanding amount within 30 days and further directed the appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority to handover the possession of the plot to the writ petitioner i.e. respondent herein. However, only a sum of Rs. 5,72,782/- through a demand draft was presented in the month of September, 2006, against the total outstanding dues of Rs. 12,02,592/-. The appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority has shown magnanimity in the matter by reducing the interest vide letter dated 17.02.2009 and the amount was reduced to Rs. 11,04,948/- which was required to be paid on or before 28.02.2009. The respondent, not being satisfied even with the reduction of amount, opted for a different route for redressal of his grievance by approaching the District Forum and the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint of the respondent - The State Commission by way of an interim order dated 15.12.2017 directed the appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority to accept the outstanding amount with interest and to deliver the possession of plot in question to the respondent, meaning thereby, a final relief was granted by way of an interim order and under these circumstances, the matter had reached the National Commission. In the considered opinion of this Court, final relief could not have been granted by the State Commission on an interlocutory application filed in the matter. In respect of NIT/advertisement issued on 05.10.1994, no such order could have been passed by the National Commission in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case i.e. after a lapse of period of 28 years. It was the respondent who committed default in depositing the balance amount as per the terms and conditions of the NIT and even after the first round of litigation before the High Court, the respondent did not deposit the amount of Rs. 12,02,592/- which was outstanding against him and, therefore, at this juncture, after a lapse of 28 years, the question of directing the appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority as has been done by the National Commission to accept the amount does not arise. Resultantly, the orders passed by the State Commission dt. 15.12.2017 and National Commission dt. 29.03.2023 deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside and it is made clear that the appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority shall issue a fresh tender in respect of the said plot in question and shall allot the plot only by way of auction or by following the due process as per rules. The appeal stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of orders passed by lower courts and commissions regarding possession of a plot.
2. Validity of directions given by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
3. Consideration of default in payment and subsequent legal actions taken by the respondent.
4. Evaluation of relief granted by the State Commission and the National Commission.
5. Decision on setting aside the orders and directing fresh tender process for plot allotment.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court involved a dispute regarding possession of a plot arising from the cancellation of an allotment due to non-payment by the respondent. The appellant, Indore Development Authority, issued an advertisement in 1994 offering plots, and the respondent was allotted a plot but failed to make full payment leading to cancellation. Subsequent legal actions, including a writ petition and consumer complaint, were filed by the respondent to challenge the cancellation. The High Court directed the appellant to restore the allotment subject to payment, but the respondent failed to pay the outstanding amount promptly, leading to further legal proceedings.

The State Commission, in an interim order, directed the appellant to accept the outstanding amount with interest and hand over possession of the plot to the respondent. However, the Supreme Court found fault with the State Commission's decision to grant final relief through an interim order. The Court noted the delay of 28 years since the original allotment and emphasized the respondent's default in payment despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the State Commission and the National Commission, directing the appellant to initiate a fresh tender process for plot allotment rather than accepting the outstanding amount from the respondent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of following due process in plot allotment and rejecting the notion of granting final relief based on an interlocutory application. The judgment clarified the responsibilities of the appellant and highlighted the significance of timely compliance with payment obligations in such matters.