ARUN BHANSALI,J - (1.) These intra -court appeals have been filed by Jodhpur Development Authority ­ appellant ('JDA') aggrieved against the judgment dated 11.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur ('the District Forum') and order dated 6.1.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur ('the State Commission') were dismissed and certain directions were issued.
(2.) The respondents -complainants had approached the District Forum by way of complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act') against the then Urban Improvement Trust ('UIT').
(3.) It was inter -alia claimed in the complaints that they were allotted plots of land in 'Shyam Nagar Scheme' with the condition that they would be required to raise construction within five years else the allotment shall stand cancelled; the actual demarcation would be possible only after development of roads and after shifting the persons in possession. After allotment, the development charges have been deposited; lease deed has been issued, however, the physical possession of the plot was not handed -over and it was told that after removing the persons in possession, the actual demarcation would be possible and thereafter only possession would be handed -over. It was claimed that the development charges, premium and lease money etc., all have been deposited by the complainants, however, the possession of the plots have not been handed -over despite repeated requests in this regard. Whereafter, a legal notice was sent, despite that possession has not been handed -over, which amounts to deficiency in service. It was stated that the UIT has failed to comply with the conditions of allotment and therefore, the complainants were entitled to compensation as well. It was prayed that possession of the plots be handed -over and in case, the same was not possible, then plots of the same size at the same location be directed to be allotted. The complaint was opposed by the UIT. It was indicated that lease deed was issued based on the resolution of UIT dated 9.1.1997, wherein it was stipulated that the responsibility for removing the encroachers would be of the allottees and the UIT would provide all possible help. It was claimed that in view of the said stipulation, the complainants were not entitled to any relief. It was alleged that the specific stipulation with regard to the removal of the encroachers in the agreement between the parties has been suppressed by the complainants and therefore, they were not entitled to any relief. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.;