NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4334 OF 2004

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING &  DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.      Appellant (s)

                     VERSUS

DAYA SINGH                                    Respondent(s)

WITH C.A.No(s).2977-2978/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21843-21844 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2979-2980/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21845-21846 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2981-2982/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21851-21852 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2983-2984/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21859-21860 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2985-2986/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21849-21850 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2987-2988/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21847-21848 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3009-3010/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21871-21872 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2989-2990/2009 @ SLP(C)No.21865-21866/2005

C.A.No(s).3011-3012/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21857-21858 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3013-3014/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21869-21870 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2911-2992/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21867-21868 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2993-2994/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21863-21864 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2995-2996/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21855-21856 of 2005

C.A.No(s).2997-2998/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21873-21874 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3015-3016/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21853-21854 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3017-3018/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21861-21862 of 2005

1      

C.A.No(s).2999-3000/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21875-21876 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3019-3020/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21881-21882 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3021-3022/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21877-21878 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3007-3008/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21879-21880 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3001-3002/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21883-21884 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3003-3004/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21885-21886 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3005-3006/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21897-21898 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3023-3024/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21889-21890 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3025-3026/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21891-21892 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3027-3028/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21895-21896 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3029-3030/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21887-21888 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3035-3036/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21915-21916 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3037-3038/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21903-21904 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3041-3042/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21899-21900 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3042-3043/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21905-21906 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3044-3045/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21893-21894 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3046-3047/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21913-21914 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3048-3049/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21929-21930 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3050-3051/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21907-21908 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3052-3053/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21909-21910 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3054-3055/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21921-21922 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3056-3057/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21901-21902 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3058-3059/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21917-21918 of 2005

2      

C.A.No(s).3060-3061/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21911-21912 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3062-3063/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21919-21920 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3064-3065/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21923-21924 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3066-3067/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21927-21928 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3068-3069/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21925-21926 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3070-3071/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21935-21936 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3072-3073/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21943-21944 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3074-3075/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21937-21938 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3076-3077/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21939-21940 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3078-3079/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21941-21942 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3080-3081/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21960-21961 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3082-3083/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21933-21934 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3084-3085/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21952-21953 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3086-3087/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21948-21949 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3088-3089/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21945-21946 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3090-3091/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21931-21932 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3092-3093/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21964-21965 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3094-3095/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21962-21963 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3096-3097/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21950-21951 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3098-3099/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21954-21955 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3100-3101/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21958-21959 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3102-3103/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21969-21970 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3104-3105/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21971-21972 of 2005

3      

C.A.No(s).3107-3108/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21977-21978 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3109-3110/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21973-21974 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3111-3112/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21979-21980 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3113-3114/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21975-21976 of 2005

C.A.No(s).3115-3116/2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 21967-21968 of 2005

C.A.No.4335/2004

C.A.No.4336/2004

O R D E R

Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

Heard learned counsel  for the parties.  All  these appeals  by special  

leave have been filed  at  the instance of  Punjab Urban Planning  & Development  

Authority  (in  short  “PUDA”)  against  the  Judgments  and  Orders  passed  by  the  

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short, “National  

Commission”) by which Revisions/Review Petitions filed by the appellants before the  

National  Commission  were  disposed  of  finally.   So  far  as  the  orders  passed  in  

Revision Petitions are concerned, we are of the view that in view of the nature of the  

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the directions  

and observations made by the National  Commission in its final  order relating to  

respective revision petitions, we are not dealing with the facts of the present case in  

detail.

4      

To  decide  the  controversies  raised  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties, it is necessary for us to reproduce the directions and observations made by  

the National Commission in the final orders, which are as follows:-

“We cannot sustain the reliefs granted by the District Forum and  affirmed  by  the  State  Commission  as  not  maintainable.   At  the   same  time  for  deficiency,  on  account  of  delayed  delivery  of   possession, on account of delayed delivery of possession, on the part   of  the  Petitioner,  we  direct  the  Petitioner  PUDA to  pay  interest   @10%  to  cater  for  interest  which  the  Complainant  could  have   earned outside, Compensation and Cost escalation, on the deposited   amount from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment   which  must  be  made  within  six  weeks  of  the  order.   Petitioner   PUDA is  also directed not  to  charge any extension fee from the   Complainants for a period of 3 years from the date of allotments of   the plots.”        

We have carefully examined the aforesaid observations and directions made  

by the National Commission in the final orders passed in the Revision Petitions.  On  

a  bare  perusal  of  the  aforesaid  observations  and  directions  of  the  National  

Commission, it would be evident that on the question of deficiency of service, the  

National  Commission  in  the  Revision  Petitions  had  observed  that  no  issue  was  

raised  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  before  it.   We  have  carefully  

examined  the  Revision  Petitions  as  well  as  the  orders  passed  by  the  State  

Commission and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh and  

also the review petitions filed by the appellants after final orders were passed in the  

review petitions by the National Commission.   

Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel  for the appellant,  

Mrs.  Rachna Joshi to the facts of  this  case and also submitted that on the issue  

5      

relating to the deficiency of service, specific issues were raised by the appellants not  

only before the National  Commission but  also in the review petitions before the  

National Commission.     

In the revision petitions, it has been specifically pointed out that the  

issue regarding deficiency of service was very much pleaded in the supplementary  

affidavit  filed  by  the  appellants  on  30th of  December,  2002  in  which  it  was  

specifically pointed out on behalf of the appellants that the possession could not be  

delivered in time to respondents in respect of the respective plots on account of the  

order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing maintenance of  

Status Quo regarding possession.   

This  factual  situation  could  not  be  disputed.   In  this  view  of  the  

matter and in view of the fact that in the event, it is found that delay was on account  

of the order passed by the High Court, directing the parties to maintain status quo  

on the question of possession of plots in question, it must be held that the question of  

payment of interest for such delayed possession given to the respective respondents  

in  respect  of  their  plots  may not  arise  at  all.   Since  there  was no  such  finding  

although specifically raised and pleaded by the appellants, we are of the view that  

before granting interest to the complainants for such delayed possession as has been  

done by the National Commission, we invite the National Commission to take up  

this issue and then decide the same on facts and thereafter, pass a final order on the  

question indicated hereinabove.   

6      

Accordingly,  we  set  aside  the  impugned  orders  of  the  National  

Commission including the orders rejecting the review petitions filed by PUDA and  

the revision petitions are remitted back to the National Commission for decision on  

the question indicated above within a period of six months from the date of supply  

of a copy of this  order to it,  without granting any unnecessary adjournments to  

either of the parties.   

We make it clear that it would be open to the parties to lead further  

evidence on the aforesaid issue, otherwise, the National Commission shall decide the  

issue as indicated hereinabove on the pleadings and evidence already on record.   

The appeals  are accordingly  allowed to the extent indicated above.  

There will be no order as to costs.   

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.         

.......................J. (TARUN CHATTERJEE)        

.......................J. (V.S. SIRPURKAR)          

NEW DELHI, APRIL 21, 2009.

7