N.K. Jain, President — Both these Appeals No. 1314/03 and 1812/03 arise from the order dated 17-7-2003 passed

by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in case No. 578/2002 requiring opposite party — “Gayatri Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit” to refund to the complainant Rs. 7300/-.

2. The demand of the complainant was that the opposite party-society be directed to develop the plot and deliver possession of the developed plot to him as per terms and conditions of the sale deed executed in his favour by the society.

3. It is significant to note that the entire cost of plot for which the sale deed was executed was fixed at Rs. 7,300/- and a break up was provided in the sale deed showing cost of the plot at Rs. 300/- and development charges Rs. 7,000/-. As per this sale deed the possession of the half deveoped plot has already been delivered to the complainant. In para 5 it was further stated :

YAH KE UKT BHUKHAND V COLONY KE JO VIKAS KARYA SHESH RAH GAYE HAI USKE LIYE SADASYA SANSTHA MAIN JO VIKAS RASHI KI AVASHYAKTA PADEGI USE JAMA KARNE KA PABAND RAHEGA TAB HI SHESH VIKAS KARYA SANSTHA DUARA KARAI JAYANGE.

4. A bare perusal of the sale deed would show that Rs. 7300/- were charged from the complainant not towards the development charges but towards the cost and the development already maade so far on the spot. Obviously, the money was charged for the partly developed plot and further development was to be under-taken by the society on payment of requi-site charges by the members. Admittedly, no further amount has been paid by the complainant towards any such further development. It has also come in evidence that the Municipal Corporation Bhopal has cancelled the licence and stopped any further development of the plot. Under circumstance, opposite party-society is not in position to undertake any further development. Forum below in our opinion erred in directing refund of the said amount of Rs. 7300/- even when the complainant continues to be the owner and in possession of the plot in question.

5. Ku. Bharati Arora, learned counsel for the complainant strenuously contended that possession of the plot has not been delivered to the complainant

on the spot. As against it, Shri H.P. Budholiya, learned counsel for opposite party-society submitted that the society is still prepared to demarcate the plot sold to the complainant and deliver the possession thereof in whatever manner the complainant desires. However, it is explained that further development of the area shall be subject to the decision of the High Court which is now seized of the matter and on complainant depositing the amount required for any such further development. We feel persuaded by the arguments of Shri Budholiya. The sub-missions are in tune with the conditions of the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant.

6. Accordingly, we dispose of these appeals with under-noted directions :

(1) Order for refund of said amount Rs. 7300/- is vacated.

(2) The opposite party-society is directed to demarcate the plot sold to the complainant and put him in actual physical possession thereof on as it is and where it is basis.

(3) In case the permission for development is resumed in future the society shall also develop the plot subject to the complainant and other members making necessary payments thereof.

7. We make no order as to costs which the parties are left to bear their own as incurred throughout.

8. This order be retained in Appeal No. 1314/03 and a copy be placed in appeal No. 1812/03.

Appeals disposed of.

*******