Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 30.09.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1258/2013 in which order dated 24.06.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 467 of 2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party(s) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties before the District Forum, the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant(s) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 20.02.2017. Parties filed Written Arguments on 25.06.2018, 15.05.2023 & 09.06.2026 (Petitioners) and 27.07.2021 & 02.06.2026 (Respondent) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the parties and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

                          4.1 On 01.08.1995, the Respondent/Complainant was allotted plot No. 3650 measuring 400 sq. yards, Sector 69, Mohali, through a draw, under the oustees policy, for a consideration of Rs. 14,40,000/-© Rs.3600/- per sq. yds.

                          4.2 In the Complaint, the Complainant has mentioned that the Allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 21.08.1997 in which price of the plot was fixed ©Rs.3600/- per sq. yard instead of Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard and rate of interest on the installments was raised from 10% to 15% per annum, but under the threat of cancellation of the allotment, the Complainant deposited Rs.2,66,500/- on 17.09.1997. Thereafter, the Complainant filed Complainant No. 64/1998 before the State Commission, Punjab on 23.10.1998 challenging the price of the plot demanded by the OP. The State Commission allowed the Complaint vide order dated 30.06.1999 with the direction to the OPs to change price of plot for the Complainant ©Rs.1400/- per sq. yard and refund of excess amount along with interest @18% per annum with compensation of Rs.5,000/- apart from litigation costs of Rs.2,000/-. The OPs challenged the order dated 30.06.1999 before the National Commission. Vide order dated 20.08.2004, this Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the OP and dismissed the Complaint. Thereafter, in 2005, challenging the order of the National Commission, the Complainant filed Civil Appeal (CA No. 5811/2005) before the Supreme Court. Vide its order dated 10.08.2011, Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the National Commission and remanded the matter back to the State Commission to consider issues with respect to the completion of formalities of allotment. The State Commission vide order dated 02.04.2012 concluded that the Complainant was to pay the price of the plot © Rs. 1800/- per sq. yard.

                          4.3 After the decision dated 02.04.2012 by the State Commission, the Complainant submitted an application for issuance of 'No Dues Certificate', which was not applied by the Complainant earlier as the matter was under litigation. Instead of issuing 'No Dues Certificate7, the OP sent a letter dated 17.09.2012 demanding deposit of Rs.18,12,139/-, within 30 days towards non-construction charges. Hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum, Mohali, challenging the demand of Rs.18,12,139/- by the OP.

5. The District Forum vide its order dated 24.06.2013 accepted the Consumer Complaint No. 467/2012.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 24.06.2013 of District Forum, OPs/Petitioner(s) herein preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 30.09.2016 in FA No. 1258/2013 has dismissed the appeal and passed the following order:

                          "10. As a result of our above discussions, we find no other merit in the appeal and the same stands disposed of as referred above being without any merit"

7. Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 30.09.2016 of the State Commission inter alia on following grounds:

                          i) Respondent's second Complaint No.467 of 2012 deserved to be dismissed as is legally unsustainable, inter alia, for being barred by the principles enshrined in Order II Rule 2 CPC. The fora below erred in allowing the legally untenable Complaint No.467 of 2012 contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. V. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 625.

                          ii) The State Commission has not only ignored the ratio of the abovementioned decisions to pass the impugned order interfering with the legitimate exercise by the petitioner authority of its statutory right to demand non construction/ extension fee but also allowed the respondent to approbate as well as reprobate contrary to the ratio of the order/judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu reported as (2014) 15 SCC 144, wherein, under similar circumstances, their Lordships were pleased to hold, inter alia, that an allottee who gained the advantage of avoiding resumption of his plot by paying non construction/extension fee cannot subsequently be allowed to demand its refund.

                          iii) In the absence of any deficiency having actually been shown by the Respondent, the Fora below could not have granted the relief arbitrarily by altering the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties and the public policy declared by the competent authority for completion of construction of the building within a stipulated period so as to ensure time bound development of residential colony.

                          iv) The allottees of valuable plots ought not to be allowed to first agreeing to abide by the terms of allotment and thereafter seek to avoid the legitimate liability imposed in consonance with the said terms.

                          v) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 do not empower the consumer fora to interfere with the legitimate right of a public authority or to abrogate the legitimate demand made by the petitioner public authority in valid exercise of its statutory powers and the contractual terms binding the parties. The Consumer Fora do not have the jurisdiction to alter the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties and the public policy as declared by the competent authority in charging non construction fee at uniform rates from all similarly placed defaulting allottees not caring to raise construction as per the terms of allotment even after the expiry of a decade beyond the period stipulated by the said terms.

                          vi) The State Commission failed to appreciate that provision for penalty on the allottees defaulting in time bound construction is intended to deter the allottees from keeping their plots vacant for long and then sell the same on higher price, thereby earning a premium defeating the very purpose of the development of the urban residential area by the petitioner organization.

                          vii) The State Commission failed to appreciate that restraining the petitioner from recovering extension fee from the respondent would amount to giving benefits to the Respondent for her own default as she had not bothered to raise construction in terms of the allotment letter.

                          viii) The State Commission has passed the order contrary to the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in Prashant Kumar Sahi Vs. Gazaibad Development Authority reported in 2000 (4) SCO 120 and in Premji Bhai Parmar and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority 1980 (2) SCR 704, Bareilly Developmerity and another Vs. Ajai Psil Singh & ors. (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 116.

                          ix) The District Forum as well as State Commission have passed the impugned order without appreciating the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the settled position of law that the consumer fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not vested with the powers to allow sans jurisdiction the untenable relief claimed in a complaint by erroneously assuming as correct the unsubstantiated allegations made in the complaint. The untenable relief claimed by the respondent was erroneously allowed sans jurisdiction, completely disregarding the fact that the respondent was herself responsible for delay in raising construction over the plot and was not entitled to take advantage of her own wrong so as to avoid the legitimate consequences of her defaults in compliance with the terms of allotment.

                          X) The State Commission has ignored the law laid down by this Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airline and another (2000 (1) SCC 66.

                          xi) The State Commission failed to appreciate that, as per clause 10 of the terms and conditions of allotment, the respondent was required to take possession within 90 days from the issuance of the letter of allotment. The Respondent was further required to complete the building within 3 years from the date of issue of allotment letter after getting the plans of the purposed buildings approved form the Estate Officer. In case of non-construction of the plot, the allottee may be allowed extension in time for construction of building on the payment of extension fee as determined by PUDA from time to time.

                          xii) The approach followed by the Fora below in directing the petitioner authority to withdraw letter dated 17.09.2012 sans jurisdiction and is untenable. The impugned order passed by the State Commission sans jurisdiction as it grants relief by allowing the misconceived complaint of the Respondent on the basis of extraneous documents.

8. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

                          8.1 In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the petitioner contended that Complainant concealed the material information at the time of filing the Consumer Complaint that on 10.10.1998 and 17.02.1999, Respondent executed a Sale Deed for sale of Plot in question to Sh. Bachan Singh for Rs. 13,02,000/- and received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. On 06.08.2012, Bachan Singh filed a Civil Suit No. 2169/2013 before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) SAS Nagar, Mohali, seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.10.1998 and 17.02.1999 in respect of the flat in question. It is contended that on the date of filing of Suit, Bachan Singh was in possession of Property, as recorded in the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Mohali. Bachan Singh sought specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 17.02.1999 along with permanent injunction and in the alternative, recover the sale consideration and damages. The plantiff contended that the defendant had executed Agreements and received the entire sale consideration, executed supporting documents including a Will and General Power of Attorney and thereafter unlawfully avoided execution of the sale deed. The Respondent herein denied execution of the agreements, alleging that the plaintiff, who had earlier acted as her advocate, had obtained her signatures on blank papers and fabricated the documents. However, during the proceedings, the defendant admitted her signatures on the agreements. The Court held that once the signatures were admitted, the burden is shifted to the defendant (Respondent herein) to establish fraud or fabrication. The Court found that the defendant (Respondent herein) had failed to adduce any convincing evidence to substantiate her allegations, whereas the plaintiff successfully proved the execution of the agreements, payment of consideration through documentary evidence, and his readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations. It is further contended that the Respondent herein challenged the decree dated 31.05.2018 before the Ld. Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance, possession, permanent injunction, and alternative monetary relief in favour of the subsequent buyer. The principal contention of the Respondent herein was that the agreements to sell dated 10.10.1998 and 17.02.1999 were forged and fabricated documents allegedly created by the Bachan Singh, who had earlier acted as her counsel and had obtained her signatures on blank papers. Vide Order dated 25.08.2025 the Appellate Court of Ld. Additional District Judge rejected the said defence and upheld the findings of the Trial Court. It is also contended that the Complaint dated 23.10.1998 (1st Complaint) was filed seeking benefit of price fixation from the Consumer Forum without disclosing the fact that Agreement to Sale has already been executed. It is further contended that the Respondent is not a Consumer. The Respondent entered into Agreements to Sell in respect of the plot in question on 10.10.1998 and 17.02.1999. By virtue of the said transactions, the Respondent had divested all his rights, title, interest, and beneficial ownership in the plot and had agreed to transfer the same to third parties for valuable consideration. Consequently, the Respondent ceased to have any subsisting interest in the plot and was not in possession thereof thereafter. Hence the consumer-service provider relationship, if any, stood extinguished upon the transfer of the Respondents rights in the plot. Therefore, even at the time of institution of the first consumer complaint in the year 1998, which pertained to fixation of the price of a plot that had already been agreed to be sold, the Respondent did not possess the status of a consumer. Even in the present proceedings as well, the Respondent cannot claim the status of a consumer in view of the sale of the plot, which stands duly established and affirmed by the findings recorded in the Civil Court Judgment dated 31.05.2018 and 25.08.2025. It is further contended that the protection available under consumer jurisprudence is confined to persons who continue to avail goods or services for their own use and benefit. Once an allottee transfers or commercially deals with the property by entering into transactions for sale and receives consideration therefrom, such allottee ceases to be a consumer in respect of the subject property. It is also contended that the Respondent had not pointed out any deficiency on the part of GMADA. The issuance of the Demand Notice for non-raising the construction has no element of service, as it is issued squarely in terms of the Town Planning Act and Rules framed thereunder. The statutory obligation of a developmental authority and the plot-holder under the authority's statutory framework cannot be construed as acts or omissions resulting in a 'deficiency in service' and hence, levy of non-construction fee in event of default of allottee is valid. It is further contended that the impugned order barred by Principle enshrined in Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and is contrary to the settled position of law. The Respondent did not seek any relief other than challenging the price fixation clause of the Agreement in the previous round of litigation. Claim is barred under the principles of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. It is further contended that where a proceeding has already been preferred seeking relief for a cause of action, then a subsequent proceeding seeking different relief arising from the same cause of action is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. Order II Rule 2(1) provides that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plantiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. Allotment Letter is the basis of cause of action for filing earlier round of litigation and the present round of litigation. (Relied on the judgment in Virgo Industries (Eng.) (supra). In support of their contentions the Petitioner has also relied upon the following judgments:

                          i) Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583 (Para 11, 12&21)

                          ii) Aloke Anand v. IREO (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC Online NCDRC 410 (Para 10)

                          iii) Mrs. Rajni Suryakant Gujar & Anr. v. Shree Vinayaka Developers, First Appeal No. 8 of 2017 (Para 10)

                          iv) Ahbaab Singh Grewal & Ors. vs State of Punjab & Ors., 2015 SCC Online P&H 20592 (Para 32)

                          8.2 On the other hand the Respondent contended that the said demand towards non-construction charges vide letter dated 17.09.2012 from the Respondent/Complainant is per-se illegal as the possession of the subject plot was never handed over to the Complainant/Respondent by the Appellant/Opposite Party at any point of time till now. Prior to delivery of the possession, the allottee has to procure 'No Dues Certificate' from the Appellant Authority subject to clearance of all dues, however in the first round of litigation, the subject matter in dispute was the rate of allotment of the allotted plot which got finally adjudicated in 2012 (after 10 year). However, the OP is claiming that it is presumed that the allottee will be having deemed-possession of the subject plot automatically after 90 days from the date of the Allotment letter giving reference to the Clause 10 of the Allotment Letter whereas nothing is mentioned in the said Clause which states that "you will be required to take possession of the plot from Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali within 90 days of the date of the Allotment Letter." It is further contended that the demand of the non-construction charges from the Complainant/ Respondent is not justified as the OP failed to establish their sole contention that the non-construction charges were levied on the Respondent due to the delay in the construction of the building on the allotted plot within 3 years from the date of issue of allotment letter as per the Clause 11 of the Allotment Letter. The allottee has not been handed over possession of the subject plot till date, as she was exercising the legal recourse for saving her legal rights throughout these years from 1998 onwards till 2012 and there was no occasion for the Complainant/Respondent to raise the construction over the allotted plot in question on account of pending litigation, which was finally adjudicated vide order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the State Commission, Punjab. Hence, there was no occasion for the Complainant/Respondent to comply with Clause 10 and 11 of the said Allotment Letter. It is also contended that the OP without any basis/calculation had raised an illegal demand for enhanced extension fees of Rs.18,12,139/-, as no such calculation was placed on record nor any evidence was led in this regard before the fora below. It is further contended that the contention of the OP that the Fora below and this Commission have no jurisdiction to go into correctness of demand for non-construction fees/extension fees. The OP has placed reliance on the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case HUDA Vs Sunita (2005) SCC 479 and the plea has been taken that the imposition of non¬ construction fee cannot be challenged before the consumer Forum / Commission as it lacks jurisdiction, but the proposition of law in this regard has been settled by the National Commission in case of Narinder Singh Nanda Vs P.U.D.A., Revision Petition No.2125 of 2006 decided on 27.05.2009, wherein after discussing in detail all the provisions of the Act and the Rules including the case HUDA Vs Sunita (supra), it was held that when the statutory authorities go against the provisions of the statute, then the Court/Forum has the jurisdiction and held that the extension fee under Rule 13 of Punjab Regional and Town Planning Development (General) Rules, 1995, only can be demanded. The OP and its officials knowingly have ignored the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and sent letter to recover/retain the non-construction charges/ extension fee against the rules. Under the PUDA Act, (the "1995 Rules") were framed and the OP was entitled to charge the extension fee under Rule 13 of the said 1995 Rules. Later on, the Circular letter no. PUDA-P&C-97/185-194 dated 15.01.1998" were held ultra vires to the provisions of the 1995 Act read with the 1995 Rules by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case "Tehal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab", passed in Civil Writ Petition No.13648 of 1998 decided on 04.05.1998 and subsequently again, the administrative instructions were issued on 08.10.2001 which were again struck down by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 18986 of 2001 decided on 31.10.2002 titled as "Sant Kaur Jabbi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.", and ultimately the Special Leave Petitions against the said judgments were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under appeal nor there is any ground to interfere with the same. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present Revision Petition with exemplary costs.

9. This case was heard at length on 01.06.2026, when the judgment was reserved. This order, which briefly captures the case facts and the rival contentions, is reproduced below:

                          '7. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

                          2. Challenge is to the order dated 30.09.2016 of the State Commission vide which First Appeal filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed and order of the District Commission was upheld. Earlier, District Commission vide its order dated 24.06.2013 allowed the complaint with following directions to the OPs (petitioner herein):

                          (a) withdraw letter dated 17.09.2012 Ex:C-7 whereby illegal demand of Rs. 18,12,139/- has been, demanded from the complainant;

                          (b)issue no due certificate to the complainant after calculating consideration of the plot in question @ Rs. 1,800/- per sq. yard as per orders of the Hon ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressai Commission dated 02.04.2012 after giving benefit of 18% interest per annum on the excess amount remained deposited with the OPs, if any.

                          c. pay Rs.l,00,000/-(Rs. One iac only) to the complainant towards mental harassment as issue of fixation of price has consumed valuable time of 14 years of the complainant and during this period she has been deprived of use and peaceful enjoyment of her property d. pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant.

                          3. Our attention has been drawn to earlier order of the State Commission dated 02.04.2012 which pertains to the price of the plot in question wherein the OPs have agreed to charge the price of the plot from the complainant @ Rs. 1800/- per sq. yd. As per this order, the complainants were to make payment @ Rs.1800/- per sq. yd within 2 months and complete the formalities and, thereafter respondent ( petitioner herein) were to complete all the formalities including execution of the conveyance deed within 2 months, after depositing of the money. The said order is reproduced below:

                          The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Sh. K D. Sidhu Chief Administrator, PUDA had filed an affidavit dated 21.05.2001 in the Hon'bie National Commission, copy of which has been produced on record by the complainant as Annexure C-4.

                          Para 8 of this affidavit reads as under "That PUDA going by the said opinion of the learned Advocate General, Punjab decided to comply with the order this Hon hie Commission and charge the price which was prevailing at the time when the applicant completed the formalities.

                          That, in view of the above said facts and circumstances, now the deponent again reconsidered the case of Smt. Harinder Kaur with regard to the charge of price and observed that Smt. Harinder Kaur has also completed the formalities on dated 06.11.1996 for allotment of plot, The rate at that time (06.11.1996 when she admittedly completed the formalities) was Rs. 1800/- per syd. As such the PUDA is ready to charge this price of Rs. 1800/- per syd Qua the plot allotted to her."

                          As per this para the respondents are ready to charge the price of the plot from the complainant at the rate of Rs. 18,00/- per Per Sq. yard which was the rate prevailing on 06.11.1996.

                          The complainant is also ready to pay Rs. 1800/- per sq. yard for the plot measuring 400 syd.

                          Therefore, the complainant is disposed of as compromised.

                          The complainant would make the payment at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per sq. yard to the respondents when two months and complete the formalities. Thereafter, the respondents would complete all formalities including the execution of the conveyance deed within two months after the deposit of money by the complainant with them.

                          4. It is the case of the respondent / complainant herein that when the complainant paid the said amount and requested for No Due Certificate (page 178), the OP issued letter dated 17.09.2012 demanding an amount of Rs.18,26,984/- towards non-construction fee, which after adjusting the interest / penalty on instalment came to net amount payable at Rs.18,12,139/-. It was this demand which was challenged before the District Commission.

                          5. Our attention was drawn to the allotment letter at page 61 onwards, in particular, clause 11, which states that construction should be completed within 3 years from the date of issue of letter after getting the plans of the proposed building approved from the Estate Officer. This clause is reproduced below:

                          You shall have to complete the building within 3 years from the date of issue of this letter after getting the plans of the proposed buildings, approved from the Estate Officer, In case of non-construction of the plot, on your own request you may be allow extension in time for construction of building on the payment at extension fee and determined by PUDA from time to time. In case, no request is received within 30 days on the expiry of prescribed period the Estate Officer shall initiate proceeding for the resumption of the plot as per the provisions of Punjab Urban Planning and development Act, 1995 and rules framed their under.

                          7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent complainant is not a consumer and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such issue as under the relevant provisions of the Act, appeal from the order of the Estate Officer lies to Chief Administrator and the respondent complainant has not exercised this option to file such an appeal. The relevant provision in this regard has been cited by the petitioner in his revision petition memorandum. Reliance was also placed on the judgment dated 25.08.2025 of the Add!. District Judge, copy of which was placed before us during the hearing. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner herein that from 02.01.2000, the respondent complainant was liable to pay the non-construction fee as per the prevailing rates and at the time of issuance of letter dated 17.09.2012, it amounted to Rs.18,26,984/-.

                          They have not placed on record copy of their any instructions / regulations containing the rates of such construction fee and if these rates have changed over the period, period wise rate of construction fee payable.

                          8. However, it is the case of the respondent complainant herein is that no such construction fee was payable as possession of the plot in unit was neither offered nor actually given any time after the date of order by the State Commission referred to above i.e. 02.04.2012. There are no documents / evidence on record to show whether the petitioner herein offered possession or handed over the possession of the plot in question any time on or after 02.04.2012. However, counsel for the petitioner herein drew our attention to clause 10 of the allotment letter and argued that as per this letter, respondent complainant was required to take possession of the plot within 90 days. However, learned counsel for respondent argued that when whole issue of rates at which allotment was to be made under litigation before the State Commission and issued got decided only on 02.04.2012, how the possession could have been taken within 90 days within this clause.

                          9. Moreover, perusal of the clause 11 retied upon by the petitioner herein also indicates that 3 years period from the date of issue of tetter is after getting the plans of the proposed building approved from the Estate Officer. If the dispute relating to the price of the plot had not been decided, the Estate Officer obviously could not have approved the plans as the requisite payments have not been paid on account ofpending litigation. This clause further contains a provision for allowing extension in time for construction on payment of extension fee and in case no request is received within 30 days, the Estate Officer can initiate proceedings for resumption of the plot Obviously in the present case, because of the pending litigation, due to price of the land, such process for resumption has not been taken.

                          10. Hence, from the foregoing, one thing which has emerged clearly is that after the order of the State Commission dated 02.04.2012 referred to above, no offer of possession / actual physical possession has been made by the petitioner authority. It is only when after making the payment in accordance with the above said order of the State Commission that complainant respondent sought NDC from the petitioner authority, the said tetter dated 17.09.2012 was got issued.

                          11. In this case there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below as regards liability of the respondent to pay the construction fee is concerned as demanded vide letter dated 17.09.2012.

                          12. After hearing both sides, judgment reserved.

                          13. Both sides are granted liberty to file an updated written notes of arguments duly referencing their pleadings aiongwith copies ofjudgments they wish to rely upon ( including the judgments already placed on record) duly indexing and paginating the same and marking the relevant paras and highlighting the issue they wish to bring out from these judgments. The same be filed within a maximum of one week from today."

10. The Civil Suit which was adjudicated vide order dated 31.05.2018 of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and the order dated 25.08.2025 of the Appellate Court of Additional District Judge pertains to issues relating to the Agreement to Sell signed by the Complainant/Respondent dated 10.10.1998 and 17.02.1999. One Mr. Bachan Singh, had filed the Civil Suits seeking specific performance of the Agreement(s) to Sell. The suit was decreed in favour Mr. Bachan Singh. Appeal filed by the Complainant (respondent herein) was also dismissed as per order dated 25.08.2025. However, the main issue to be adjudicated in the present Complaint is whether the Petitioner herein i.e. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority was justified in issuing letter dated 17.09.2012 demanding an amount of Rs. 18,26,918/- towards non¬ construction fee. No doubt, Clause 11 of the allotment letter dated 21.07.1997 states that the allottee has to complete the building within 3 years from the date of letter after getting the plans of the proposed building approved form the Estate Officer. The said clause has reproduced above in the order dated 01.06.2026 (cited in para 9 of this order).

11. In the present case, the dispute with respect to the price chargeable by the Petitioner authority got decided by the State Commission only on 02.04.2012, wherein the authority itself have expressed their willingness to charge the price of the plot from the Complainant at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per sq.ft., which was the rate prevailing on 06.11.1996. Obviously, if the dispute relating to the sale consideration was pending, the Complainant could not have got the plans of the proposed building approved from the Estate Officer, as this would require the payment of all dues towards the sale consideration. Moreover, in the present case, no action has been initiated by the Estate Officer for resumption of the plot on account of non-construction. Immediately after the order dated 02.04.2012 of the State Commission, the Complainant paid the amount and requested for NDC, which led to the issuance of letter dated 17.09.2012. Hence, we are in agreement with the contentions of the Complainant/Respondent that no such construction fee was payable as possession of the unit was neither offered nor actually given at any time after the date of order of the State Commission referred to above i.e. dated 02.04.2012. There are no documents/evidence on record to show whether the Petitioner authority offered or handed over possession of the plot in question any time on or after 02.04.2012, rather the Complainant immediately made the payments after the said order of the State Commission and sought NDC. Both District Commission and State Commission have taken due note of the pending suit/ litigation before the Trial Court. On account of such litigation, possibly so far the transfer of the plot from the name of the Complainant/Respondent to Mr. Bachan Singh has not taken place yet. Moreover, in the suit filed by Mr. Bachan Singh, the Complainant had opposed the prayers for specific performance of Agreement(s) to sell dated 10.10.1998 and 17.02.1999. Obviously, he had not moved any application before Petitioner Authority for transfer of said plot in favour of Mr. Bachan Singh and was pursuing his case before State Commission for settling the price of plot and getting the NDC from the Authority etc. It is subsequent to the orders dated 24.06.2013 of District Commission and order dated 30.09.2016 of the State Commission that the said suit has been decreed by the Civil Court against the Complainant. Orders of Appellate Civil Court are also events subsequent to the orders of District Commission and State Commission. Hence, the fora below have passed the orders taking note of the status at that point of time, when the Civil Suit was still pending, and in appreciation of the facts and evidence before it at that point of time. The contentions of Petitioner Authority of Complainant not being a consumer on the ground of sale of plot lacks merit as no Sale of plot had actually taken place. It was only agreement(s) to sell, which also were disputed by the Complainant, although the suit has subsequently (after the date of orders of State Commission and District Commission) been decreed against the Complainant. Being an allottee of plot by Petitioner Authority, the Complainant satisifies the definition of being Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

12. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments1 that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a 1 Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India ) Limited and Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 286, T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC » jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Both the Fora below have given concurrent findings with respect to the extension fee not being payable as per letter dated 17.09.2012 of the Petitioner authority and we are in agreement with the same. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the State Commission, accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.09.2016 of the State Commission is upheld and Revision Petition No. 333 of 2017 is dismissed.

13. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.