First Appeal No. 736 of 2012. Case: Bhubaneswar Development Authority Vs Brahmananda Hota. Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 736 of 2012
Party NameBhubaneswar Development Authority Vs Brahmananda Hota
CounselFor Appellant: M/s. S. Swain and Associates and For Respondents: Party-in-Person
JudgesR.N. Biswal, J. (President) and Smarita Mohanty, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 5
Judgement DateMay 30, 2014
CourtOrissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

R.N. Biswal, J. (President)

  1. The appellant calls in question the order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in C.D. Case No. 614 of 2007 wherein it directed the appellant to allot a MIG housing plot in favour of the respondent under Kalinga Nagar Plotted Development Scheme on receipt of the prevailing cost at par with other allottees or in alternative to allot a plot of the same size or higher size under any other plotted Scheme in absence of the MIG plot in accordance with the terms and conditions of the brochure in the vicinity of Kalinga Nagar and to pay him (respondent) a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards litigation cost. Respondent was complainant and appellant was opposite party before the District Forum.

    Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant before the District Forum is that in the year 1991 in response to the advertisement made by the opposite party, he applied for a plot of MIG category of size 40' x 60', i.e., 2400 square feet under Kalinga Nagar Plotted Development Scheme, Bhubaneswar on depositing a sum of Rs. 6,000 through challan against the total cost of Rs. 36,000 and his application was registered as No. KNM 386/93 and the same was communicated to him by the opposite party on 7.9.1993, but the application was not considered and he was asked by the opposite party to get back his initial deposit of Rs. 6,000 on depositing the challan. He made representation to the opposite party and opposite party assured to consider his application in future in case any Housing Scheme is launched.

  2. It is the specific case of the complainant that some plots were allotted to some other persons in the aforesaid Scheme in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Again on 4.11.2007, it was published in the Oriya Daily "The Samaj" for auction sale of MIG category of plots under the same Scheme. So, he was compelled to file the aforesaid C.D. Case with prayer to direct the opposite party to allot a plot of MIG category under the aforesaid Scheme and to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000 and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000 in his favour.

  3. On being noticed; opposite party entered appearance and filed written version admitting that complainant applied for a MIG category plot under Kalinga Nagar Plotted Scheme on depositing Rs. 6,000 and his application was registered as No. KNM - 386/93. The plots were allotted by lottery and as the complainant failed to win in the lottery his application was not taken into consideration, which was intimated to the complainant. It was further intimated to him that if he would not return back his initial deposit his case would be considered in future, however, he did not reply to it. After lapse of 2 years, he requested through letter dated 21.6.2006 to the opposite party to let him know about the status of the application. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial