Noida: The state consumer commission has set aside a 21-year-old order passed by the district forum in Lucknow, ruling that the forum had no jurisdiction to hear the matter as it involved criminal issues requiring detailed adjudication.Prem Kishore Singh bought a plot that was allegedly located on a green belt from one Deepali Agrawal in Sector G, Jankipuram. The plot in question was previously registered with Lucknow Development Authority. When Singh asked the Authority to grant him approval for the construction of a building, he was denied. Dissatisfied, he filed a suit with the district commission in 2003.In its Dec 29, 2005, order, the district commission asked the Authority to complete formalities within 45 days, transfer a disputed plot in Singh’s name and hand over physical possession. The Authority, through its secretary, approached the state commission in 2008 against the order passed in Singh’s favour.The state panel said that the appeal filed by the Authority was dismissed in default on Feb 23, 2012, due to the non-appearance of both parties. “The Authority then filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Commission, which, after imposing a penalty of Rs 10,000, reinstated the matter to be heard again on March 9, 2016,” the commission noted. The matter was adjourned on various dates due to the absence of the Authority representative and was dismissed on April 4, 2016, as the Authority had not deposited the cost imposed by the national commission.The Authority once again moved a revision petition with the national commission on Jan 17, 2024, and the next date of hearing was fixed on Feb 26, 2024, for Rs 60,000 to decide the matter. The cost imposed by the national commission was deposited on March 6, 2024, and the hearing began.The Authority’s counsel, Dilip Shukla, said the Jankipuram plot had not been allotted to anyone. “There is no justification for the transfer of title due to the non-availability of the layout plan. Singh had executed the said plot with Deepali Agrawal; therefore, he is not entitled to any relief from the Authority,” he said.Singh’s counsel, Alok Sinha, argued that his client purchased the plot from Agrawal for an amount of Rs 2.56 lakh but she had purchased it from LDA in 1997 for Rs 84,000. “Singh is not a consumer of the appellant, LDA, but is a beneficiary of the complaint. Therefore, he is a consumer of the Authority,” Sinha claimed, adding that since the appeal in question was filed by the Authority with a delay of more than three years, it was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.After hearing the arguments, the panel of commission president Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava and member Sudha Upadhyay noted that Lucknow Development Authority and its officers had allotted a plot on a green belt. A criminal case had been registered in compliance with a 2006 order from the High Court and was pending before the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption/CBI (West), Lucknow. So it concluded that the matter did not qualify to be dealt with under the Consumer Protection Act and set aside the district forum’s order.
