logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 (Cons.) Case No.266 print Preview print Next print
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No : Revision Petition Nos. 1004 of 2022, 424 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
Parties : Bhupendra Kumar & Another Versus General Manager, (Riico) & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Jitendra Kumar Khatik, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nikhil Jain, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 18-08-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979

Catch Words:
- Cancellation
- Deficiency in service
- Amnesty scheme
- Revision petition
- Consumer complaint
- Default
- Waiver
- Concession
- Relief

Summary:
The Revision Petitions challenge the cancellation of industrial plots allotted to the petitioner by RIICO, alleging deficiency in service and seeking benefits under the 2023 Amnesty Scheme. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had dismissed the appeals, upholding the District Commission’s finding of default in payments and non‑utilisation. The petitioner submitted additional documents showing the extension of time limits and waivers under the Amnesty Scheme, arguing entitlement to relief. The bench observed that the Amnesty Scheme is a subsequent event and does not affect the earlier determinations. No error was found in the lower courts’ orders, and the petitions were consigned without granting any relief.

Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

A.P. Sahi, J. (President)

1. These two Revision Petitions raise similar questions but are based on different facts and therefore they are being disposed of simultaneously.

2. Revision Petition No. 1004 of 2022 arises out of the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan in First Appeal No. 283 of 2013 where the Impugned Order dated 15.07.2022 dismisses the Appeal filed by the Petitioner Bhupendra Kumar.

3. The Complainant / Appellant Bhupenra Kumar had filed Consumer Complaint No. 153 of 2012 alleging deficiency in service on the part of RIICO, Udaipur in relation to the cancellation of an industrial plot that was booked by him for setting up of a unit. A letter of allotment was issued to him on 07.06.2001 on terms and conditions regarding payments as also to raise the unit and complete the constructions within a specified period of time. The period of construction was given as 3 years under the scheme and for running the unit as 5 years.

4. According to the Respondents, the Complainant was intimated of completing his part of the obligations and also make payments. The authority came to the conclusion that the Complainant has not abided by the terms and conditions of allotment in either raising the constructions or having started the unit, as such vide letter dated 11.06.2011 while refunding a sum of Rs.5,583/- to the Complainant he was also informed of the cancellation of the allotment.

5. The Complainant made an attempt to revive his claim by explaining the reasons as to why he could not start the unit and on the other hand also made a Complaint that the facilities which had been promised while allotting the said plot had not been executed and it was for this reason as well that the Complainant could not develop the plot.

6. Having failed to get any relief the Complaint was filed in the year 2012 and upon exchange of pleadings the Complaint was dismissed holding that the Complainant had failed to avail of the opportunity as extended under the scheme and therefore there was no deficiency.

7. Against the order of the District Commission, Rajsamand dated 29.10.2013 the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission that has also been dismissed upholding the Order of the District Commission. The present Revision Petition was filed contending that the cancellation was illegal and as a matter of fact there was no deficit on the part of the Complainant in complying with the directions.

8. During the course of submissions learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Bench to the additional documents filed by him including a copy of the office order dated 27.09.2023 of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO Ltd.). The letter dated 27.09.2023 is extracted herein under:

                          "Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. Udyog-Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur- 302005 No.: IPI/P-5/2013/46/Part-III/1187 Date: 27, Sept., 2023 OFFICE ORDER (13/2023) Sub: To extend the time limits for various rebates/ concessions / waivers allowed in RIICO Amnesty Scheme-2023. In order to implement the directions of Finance (Tax) Department, GoR issued vide U.O Note No. P.12 (35) Finance/Tax/2023 dated 05.09.2023; an agenda was placed before the BoD by Circulation. The Board has passed Resolution on the said agenda for extending the time limit from 30.09.2023 to 31.12.2023 of Amnesty Scheme-2023 for various rebates/ concessions/ waivers by relaxing the relevant provisions of RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979, in continuation of earlier Office Order (06/2023) dated 09.03.2023 as under:-

                          S. No. Rebates/concessions/ waivers by relaxing the relevant provisions of RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979

                          (i) If the allottee deposits outstanding principal dues of service charges and economic rent in one go on or before 31.12.2023 then 100% recoverable interest on the outstanding principal dues shall be waived. However, the cases wherein outstanding dues with interest have already been deposited shall not be re-opened.

                          (ii) Rebate of 60% in payable interest, if the allottee deposits the installments of premium outstanding up to 30.06.2022 along with remaining 40% interest amount on or before 31.12.2023.

                          (iii) In those cases in which allotted plot either has already been utilized or will be utilized upto 30.11.2023 as per rules, then in such cases, 80% amount of the applicable retention charges/Addl. Cost of Land for regularization of delay period shall be waived subject to deposit remaining 20% amount of retention charges/ Addl. Cost of Land on or before 31.12.2023. However, the cases wherein retention charges/Additional Cost of Land has already been paid shall not be re-opended.

In those cases where allotment of plot stands cancelled due to non-utilization within the stipulated/extended time period then in such cases allotment of plot may be restored as per procedure laid down in RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 subject to condition that the recovery of retention charges/addl. Cost of land will be time being deferred till 31.12.2023 envisaging that the allotted plot shall be utilized up to 30.11.2023 by the allottee."

9. Learned Counsel submits that according to the said office order of the Government time limits have been extended and waivers and concessions have been allowed under an amnesty scheme. The Complainant is fully qualified and eligible to avail the benefits under the said scheme for which an application had been moved yet RIICO remained unresponsive.

10. Learned Counsel submits that the cancellation of allotment was invalid and even otherwise the Complainant / Petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the amnesty scheme as well.

11. Similar is the claim in respect of another plot by the Complainant in Revision Petition No. 424 of 2026. In the said case also a similar Complaint was filed alleging that the cancellation was attempted by RIICO on erroneous grounds, and that too even without taking previous permission from the Head Office. Learned Counsel also urged that the payments had been made by the Complainant therein but it is the Respondent who did not develop the area nor provided the facilities which resulted in no constructions being raised by the Petitioner.

12. The Respondent came up with a plea that the Senior Regional Manager had the authority to cancel the allotment and in both cases there was a clear default on the part of the Complainants as such the cancellation was valid. The Complainant had no case to reclaim the property and therefore Complaint No. 21 of 2018 was also dismissed on similar grounds.

13. An Appeal was filed against the same being First Appeal No. 42 of 2019 which has been dismissed on 23.09.2025. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in both the cases has therefore submitted that in this case as well the Complainant was entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme extracted herein above which has not been entertained by the Respondent / Opposite Party.

14. We have considered the submissions raised and we do not find any error in the conclusions arrived at either by the District Commission or by the State Commission inasmuch as it is a fact that the Complainant in both the cases had defaulted in making payments and therefore the cancellation ensued. In the given circumstances and on the facts of the cases pleaded, we do not find any error in the orders passed by the District Commission or by the State Commission in either of the Complaints.

15. Having said that we now turn to the arguments of the learned Counsel regarding any relief under the amnesty scheme of 2023.

16. We find that this is a subsequent event inasmuch as this scheme was not there either when the Complaints were filed or decided. The scheme of 2023 is an independent exercise where certain benefits have been extended to those who could not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment earlier. While we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the fora below, we consign the Revision Petitions but at the same time we also observe that in case the Petitioners move before RIICO for any consideration of the request for a benefit for which they may be entitled to under the amnesty scheme, 2023 it will be open to the Respondent to entertain the same and pass appropriate orders. With the said observations both the Revision Petitions are consigned.
 
  CDJLawJournal