SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DINESH SINGH, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
Anila Goel – Appellant
Versus
HUDA – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mukesh Rao, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocate

ORDER

This revision has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 07.02.2011 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1194 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 09.11.2004 of the District Commission in complaint no. 139 of 1999.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent development authority.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 09.11.2004 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 07.02.2011 of the State Commission and the petition.

3. Brief chronology leading to the revision is that a plot admeasuring 813.73 sq. m. was originally allotted by the development authority to one Mr. Devinder Kumar vide allotment letter dated 07.02.1986 and a conveyance deed was executed. The said Mr. Devinder Kumar, the original allottee, sold the plot to one Mrs. Anila Goel, a subsequent purchaser, who is the complainant herein. Prior permission of the development authority was not taken. The complainant took possession of the subject plot and a sale-deed was executed on 26.06.1991. The complainant made a request to the development authority on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top