Final Relief Could Not Be Granted In An Interlocutory Application: SC Sets Aside Consumer Commission Order Directing Local Authority To Give Possession Of Land After 28 Years

The Supreme Court set aside an Order passed by a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing Indore Development Authority to accept the outstanding amount and hand over the possession of a plot of land the agency allotted 28 years ago.

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition against an Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that had directed the authority to handover the possession of a plot of land after receiving and accepting the amount from the respondent along with interest 28 years after allotment and multiple rounds of litigation later.

A two-Judge Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, "It was the respondent who committed default in depositing the balance amount as per the terms and conditions of the [Notice Inviting Tender] and even after the first round of litigation before the High Court, the respondent did not deposit the amount... which was outstanding against him and, therefore, at this juncture, after a lapse of 28 years, the question of directing the appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority as has been done by the National Commission to accept the amount does not arise."

On the State Consumer Forum's Order, the Court held, "In the considered opinion of this Court, final relief could not have been granted by the State Commission on an interlocutory application filed in the matter." The Court set aside both the State and National Forum's Orders and directed the authority to issue a fresh tender in respect of the plot of land in question and to allot the plot "only by way of auction or by following the due process as per the rules."

Advocate Amit Pawan appeared for the appellant, Indore Development Authority, and Advocate Udayaditya Banerjee appeared for the Respondent, one Dr. Hemant Mandovra.

The case stems from a notice inviting tender offering various plots to the public and upon submitting his offer, the Respondent, was allotted a plot. The payment plan involved depositing 50 percent premium amount and lease rent within 30 days and the rest in 12 quarterly instalments. The Respondent deposited the initial amount, but did not deposit the balance instalments, and therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment and the rules of the authority, the allotment was cancelled. 

The Respondent then moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court through a Writ Petition challenging the cancellation. The High Court restored the allotment subject to him depositing the remaining amount within 30 days. He submitted a demand draft, but not for the full outstanding amount, and hence, the authority returned it. The Respondent then requested the authority to reduce the amount, which was allowed.

Instead of depositing the reduced amount, the Respondent decided to approach the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum challenging the demand for the amount and seeking a direction for execution of sale deed. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the amount was not deposited as directed by the High Court. He then approached the High Court again through a Writ Petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn.

Thereafter, the Respondent moved the State Forum with an application to be granted permission to deposit the reduced amount under protest with the liberty to reclaim the said amount. The authority opposed this request, stating that the total outstanding amount had increased on account of added interest. Through an interim Order that granted final relief, the State Forum directed him to pay the entire outstanding amount with interest. 

In a revision petition preferred before the National Forum, it was directed to calculate the interest within a period of two weeks and after receiving the amount along with interest, to handover the possession of the plot within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such deposit.

Based on the facts, the Court noticed that the National Commission, without considering any ground raised by the appellant, had directed the appellant to receive and accept the amount from the respondent along with interest and handover the possession of the plot in question.

Cause Title: Indore Development Authority v. Dr. Hemant Mandovra [2024 INSC 983]

Click here to read/download the Judgment