Unfair trade practice in plot allotment upheld, but direction to deliver an alternative plot was beyond statutory jurisdiction.

A development authority's cancellation of an allotted plot was treated as arbitrary and an unfair trade practice where the allottee had been issued a reservation/allocation letter, paid the full consideration, and was shown to have been treated as a successful allottee. The statutory forum could grant redress for such unfair trade practice by damages or compensation, but it had no jurisdiction to compel delivery of immovable property or an alternative plot in the nature of specific performance. The direction to hand over a plot was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of compensation and refund with interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the development authority's cancellation and non-delivery of the allotted plot amounted to an unfair trade practice; (ii) whether the Commission had jurisdiction to direct delivery of an alternative plot at the previously fixed price under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the development authority's cancellation and non-delivery of the allotted plot amounted to an unfair trade practice.

Analysis: The reservation/allocation letter had been issued to the respondent, the respondent had paid the full consideration, and the record supported the conclusion that the respondent was treated as a successful allottee. On those facts, the explanation that the respondent had failed in the draw of lots was not accepted. The conduct of cancelling the allotment while other similarly placed allottees were allotted plots was held to be arbitrary and to fall within the concept of unfair trade practice.

Conclusion: The finding of unfair trade practice was affirmed against the development authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to direct delivery of an alternative plot at the previously fixed price under the Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowers inquiry into unfair trade practices and permits redress by damages or compensation, but it does not confer authority to compel delivery of immovable property in the manner of specific performance. The direction to hand over a vacant plot, or an alternative plot, went beyond the powers conferred by the Act.

Conclusion: The direction to deliver a plot was without jurisdiction and was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh decision on compensation and refund with interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the finding of unfair trade practice stood, but the remedial direction for allotment of a plot was reversed and the matter was sent back for reconsideration of monetary relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The Commission under the Act can award compensation for an unfair trade practice, but it cannot grant relief equivalent to specific performance by directing delivery of a plot of land.

---