Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.)This petition, which constitutes the second foray of the petitioner before this Court, challenges the awards pronounced by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ghaziabad. On an earlier occasion the award dated 13 February 2019 [hereinafter to be referred as the "original award"] rendered by the Permanent Lok Adalat was set aside by a learned Judge of the Court in terms of his judgment dated 23 April 2019 rendered on Writ C No. 13895 of 2019. The original award was set aside since the same had come to be pronounced and made only by two members of the Permanent Lok Adalat and in the absence of the Chairman.
(2.)The present petition impugns the awards dated 28 and 29 June 2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ghaziabad in Case No. PLA/2016. The awards rendered by the Permanent Lok Adalat bear two separate dates since the Chairman delivered his decision on 28 June 2019 whereas the Members thereof pronounced their opinion on 29 June 2019. The significant question that arises for consideration is whether the two separate awards pronounced by the constituents of the Permanent Lok Adalat are legally sustainable. The claim that was instituted before the Permanent Lok Adalat essentially challenged the validity of the levy of penal interest and holding charges by the petitioner [a developer of an integrated township] upon the third respondent [the allottee] on an alleged failure to take possession of a residential plot and complete construction thereon.
(3.)However before proceeding further, the following salient facts would merit notice. The respondent No. 3 is an allottee of a residential plot situate in an integrated township being developed by the petitioner. That township, known as "Sushant Aquapolis", comprises of residential plots, high-rise towers, commercial facilities and other supportive and attendant amenities. The plot was initially allotted to one Ms. Anita Uppal who transferred the same to Sumit Pal Singh. Sumit Pal Singh is stated to have transferred the residential plot to the third respondent on 14 November 2008. Although there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the principal consideration for the residential plot has been duly paid and liabilities in respect thereof discharged, it may only to be noted that 70% of the total consideration had been paid by 6 April 2009 and thereafter further payments made on 16 April 2009.