Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gomtesh Farms And Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Smt. Sumanlata Shukla on 25 July, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 25 th OF JULY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 670 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
GOMTESH FARMS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD. THROUGH
DIRECTOR MANMOHAN CHANDAK S/O SHRI
SHANTICHAND MAHAJAN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O MAIN MARKET BIAORA
DISTT. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. PRANJALI YAJURVEDI-ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. SUMANLATA SHUKLA W/O SHRI JITENDRA
SHUKLA R/O NARSINGHGARH ROAD BIAORA DISTT.
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2012 passed in complaint case No.109/08 x 12 by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Rajgarh (Biaora), M.P.
2. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner preferred Revision No.6/2013 before the M.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal which was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2019. Thereafter, petitioner approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by way of revision Petition No.1840/2019 which was dismissed by order Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 27-07- 2023 19:19:17 2 dated 21.06.2022 as not maintainable,leaving it open to the petitioner to seek recourse to such remedy as is available under the law. Thereafter, petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The petitioner has issued an advertisement of sale of plot in residential colony with all amenities in the name of Gomtes Farmers and Resort. The respondent got attracted and paid amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner on 12.01.1997, thereafter paid Rs. 3000/- per month and in total he had paid Rs. 1,70,000/-, registration expenses of Rs. 20,000/-, but thereafter no development was done and basic amenities were provided, hence, the respondent approached the forum.
4. Petitioner appeared and submitted reply by submitting that the scheme of the development of residential colony could not work out because 30 members were not there. Vide order dated 18.06.2009 District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Rajgarh allowed the claim by directing the petitioner to start the scheme within four months and provided all facilities to complainant/ respondent and in case of failure to initiate the scheme, the petitioner shall sold the plot to the respondent for which he will bear all the expenses and return the Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 9%. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by way of appeal before the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal. Vide order dated 11.02.2010 appeal was disposed of by relegating the parties to approach the Civil court where the all disputed issues can be decided. The respondent approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, vide order dated 29.09.2010, the Commission remanded the case to State Commission for deciding the appeal on merit. After Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 27-07- 2023 19:19:17 3 remand vide order dated 18.11.2011, the petitioner was directed to return the amount of Rs. 65,000/- with interest @ 9 % from 28.03.2002. Thereafter the respondent filed execution proceedings before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Rajgarh claiming amount of Rs.3,08,000/-.
5. In execution proceedings, petitioner submitted objection that the respondent be directed to execute the sale deed. Vide order dated 13.12.2012, the learned form has rejected the objection that in appeal the order of forum has been modified to the extent of return of Rs. 65,000/- with interest. The order of sale of land by respondent to the petitioner has been set aside. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Consumer Commission by way of Revision and same was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2019 and thereafter National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also dismissed the revision. It is correct that after remand in revision No.1720/2010 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the State Commission again considered the appeal on merit and modified the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum by directing the present petitioner to return the amount of Rs. 65,000/- with interest, therefore, there is no order for sale of plot by the respondent in favour of the petitioner.
In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the order. Misc. Petition is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Praveen Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 27-07- 2023 19:19:17