Development Authority not required to handover plot after 28-year delay despite reduced interest offer when buyer defaulted on payment terms

SC set aside orders of State Commission and National Commission directing Development Authority to accept outstanding payment and handover plot possession to respondent after 28-year delay. Respondent defaulted on payment terms following HC's 2006 order requiring balance amount deposit within 30 days. Despite Authority's magnanimity in reducing interest, respondent failed to pay reduced amount by deadline and pursued alternative forum remedies. Court held final relief could not be granted through interim order after such prolonged delay, particularly where respondent committed initial default. Authority directed to issue fresh tender and allot plot through proper auction process. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of orders passed by lower courts and commissions regarding possession of a plot.
2. Validity of directions given by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
3. Consideration of default in payment and subsequent legal actions taken by the respondent.
4. Evaluation of relief granted by the State Commission and the National Commission.
5. Decision on setting aside the orders and directing fresh tender process for plot allotment.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court involved a dispute regarding possession of a plot arising from the cancellation of an allotment due to non-payment by the respondent. The appellant, Indore Development Authority, issued an advertisement in 1994 offering plots, and the respondent was allotted a plot but failed to make full payment leading to cancellation. Subsequent legal actions, including a writ petition and consumer complaint, were filed by the respondent to challenge the cancellation. The High Court directed the appellant to restore the allotment subject to payment, but the respondent failed to pay the outstanding amount promptly, leading to further legal proceedings.

The State Commission, in an interim order, directed the appellant to accept the outstanding amount with interest and hand over possession of the plot to the respondent. However, the Supreme Court found fault with the State Commission's decision to grant final relief through an interim order. The Court noted the delay of 28 years since the original allotment and emphasized the respondent's default in payment despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the State Commission and the National Commission, directing the appellant to initiate a fresh tender process for plot allotment rather than accepting the outstanding amount from the respondent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of following due process in plot allotment and rejecting the notion of granting final relief based on an interlocutory application. The judgment clarified the responsibilities of the appellant and highlighted the significance of timely compliance with payment obligations in such matters.

---