IMPORTANT POINT
Where revision against order of State Commission had been filed belatedly it was held liable to be dismissed.

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—This revision petition is filed against the interim order dated 18.6.2007 passed by the State Commission of Haryana which reads as follows:

“Heard. Delay of 5 days in filing appeal is condoned. Notice to the respondent be issued for 18.01.2008. Operation of impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Record of District Forum be summoned for that date”.

2. In this case the complainant was allotted a piece of land measuring 1000 sq. yards in Sector 33-34 Faridabad on 99 years lease-hold basis. The complainant deposited 25% of the sale price as demanded by HUDA, Faridabad. It is the case of the complainant that it had deposited an amount of Rs. 4,07,680/- with the HUDA in full and final settlement of the price of the site and that it could not take possession as the development work in the area has not been completed.

3. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party HUDA to allot an alternative site of the same dimension at the same rate at which the original site was allotted to the complainant either in the same sector or in any other adjoining sector and also to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 4,07,680/- from the date of deposit, i.e., 7.8.98 till the possession of alternative site along with Rs. 10,000/- on account of cost of litigation and harassment caused to the complainant.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, HUDA filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission passed an order on 18.06.07 and stayed the order of the District Forum and directed summoning of the record of the District Forum.

5. This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 155 days. Neither an application for condonation of delay nor any affidavit in that respect has been filed. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argues that the State Commission has passed an ex parte stay order without issuing notice to the petitioner and without hearing the counsel for the petitioner. The grandson of late Pt. Makhan Lal, supplementing the arguments of the learned counsel submits that the District Forum has passed the order in Trust’s favour which should not have been disturbed by the ex parte order of the State Commission. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that the stay order granted by the State Commission may be vacated at the earliest as the Trust has been waiting for the land for 10 years. The State Commission has passed an interim stay order fixing the date of hearing as 18.01.2008. The revision petition has been filed belatedly and on this ground alone it deserves to be dismissed. We would also not like to interfere with the discretion exercised by the State Commission in granting ad interim stay. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. However, as the petitioner has been awaiting possession of the site for ten years which is required for construction of library and dispensary of the Trust, the State Commission is directed to hear the matter expeditiously in the interest of justice.

6. Copy of the order may be sent to the Registrar of the State Commission, Haryana.

Revision petition dismissed.

*******