The Supreme Court quashed the orders of the State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions granting possession of a plot after 28 years. The Court held that relief granted under such circumstances contravened procedural requirements and contractual terms, emphasizing the significance of adhering to the original allotment conditions.

Background Facts (Paras 1-3)

• Advertisement & Allotment:
  • Indore Development Authority (IDA) issued an NIT in 1994 for Scheme No. 54.
  • Respondent Dr. Hemant Mandovra was allotted Plot No. 314 on 02.01.1995 with a phased payment plan.
  • Respondent failed to deposit installments on time, leading to the cancellation of allotment on 22.03.2000.

First Round of Litigation: High Court Order (Paras 4-5)

• Restoration of Allotment:
  • Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 174/2001. The High Court restored the allotment on 01.08.2006, directing payment of dues within 30 days.
  • Respondent paid only Rs. 5,72,782/- against outstanding dues of Rs. 12,02,592/-, leading to further disputes.

Consumer Forum Proceedings (Paras 6-7)

• District Forum Dismissal:
  • Respondent filed a consumer complaint in 2009, challenging the revised Rs. 11,04,948/-demand.
  • The complaint was dismissed on 25.02.2015 for non-compliance with High Court directives.
• Appeal to State Commission:
  • State Commission, via interim order on 15.12.2017, directed IDA to accept payment with interest and hand over possession—effectively granting final relief.

National Commission Order (Paras 7-8)

• Confirmation of Relief:
  • National Commission upheld the State Commission’s interim order on 29.03.2023, instructing IDA to hand over possession after accepting payment with interest.

Supreme Court Analysis and Decision (Paras 9-12)

• Undue Delay and Procedural Irregularities:
  • Supreme Court noted the lapse of 28 years since the initial allotment, during which the respondent repeatedly defaulted.
  • Relief granted by the State Commission and upheld by the National Commission was improper, as final relief cannot be granted through interim orders.
• Cancellation of Allotment:
  • The Court held that IDA was justified in its actions, and the Commission’s decisions contravened principles of law.
  • Directed IDA to issue a fresh tender for the plot following due process.

Legal Aspects Discussed:

Acts and Sections:

1. Town and Country Planning Act, 1973:
   • IDA operates under this Act, ensuring compliance with urban planning regulations.
2. Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
   • Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums and limitations in granting relief under interim applications.
3. Contract Law Principles:
   • Emphasis on compliance with contractual terms of allotment.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Relief cannot be granted by an interim order that effectively resolves the entire dispute.
2. Consumer Forums and Commissions must adhere to procedural and jurisdictional limits.
3. Judicial interference in administrative decisions must respect original contractual terms and timelines.

Subjects:

Land Allotment, Consumer Law, Judicial Review 

Consumer Disputes, Plot Allotment, Interim Orders, Indore Development Authority, Supreme Court Judgments, Administrative Law.