INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DR. HEMANT MANDOVRA
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1038, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1038 : 2024 INSC 983
Indore Development Authority 
v.
Dr. Hemant Mandovra 
(Civil Appeal No. 13940 of 2024)
13 December 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
An allotment of land to the Respondent was canceled by the 
Appellant for not paying the full amount as per the scheme. In 
a writ petition filed by the Respondent, High Court directed the 
respondent to pay the balance outstanding amount within 30 days 
and directed the appellant to handover the possession of the plot 
to the respondent. Respondent did not deposit the full amount and 
instead preferred a complaint against the Appellant in the District 
Forum, which dismissed Respondent’s complaint. In the appeal filed 
by the Respondent before  the State Commission, respondent filed 
an application under Section 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 
1986 for grant of permission to deposit the amount under protest 
with the liberty to reclaim the said amount. On such application, 
State Commission passed an interim order directing the appellant 
to accept the outstanding amount with interest and to deliver the 
possession of plot. In the revision petition, the National Commission 
directed the appellant to calculate the interest within a period of 
two weeks and after receiving the amount along with interest, to 
handover the possession of the plot within a period of three weeks 
from the date of receipt of such deposit. Whether such an order 
could have been
passed by the National Commission and whether 
final relief could not have been granted by the State Commission 
on an interlocutory application.
Headnotes†
Consumer Protection – Grant of final relief by State Commission 
on an Interlocutory Application – If Proper.
Held: The District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint of 
the respondent – The State Commission by directing the appellant 
to accept the outstanding amount with interest and to deliver the 
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1039
Indore Development Authority v. Dr. Hemant Mandovra
possession of plot in question to the respondent, granted a final 
relief by way of an interim order – Final relief could not have been 
granted by the State Commission on an interlocutory application 
filed in the matter – The National Commission without considering 
any ground raised by the appellant directed the appellant to receive 
and accept the amount from the respondent along with interest 
and handover the possession of the plot in question – It was the 
respondent who committed default in depositing the balance amount 
as per the terms and conditions of the NIT and even after the first 
round of litigation before the High Court, the respondent did not 
deposit the amount which was outstanding against him, even though 
appellant reduced the amount of interest to be paid and, therefore, 
at this juncture, after a lapse of 28 years, the question of directing 
the appellant as has been done by the National Commission to 
accept the amount does not arise – Resultantly, the orders passed 
by the State Commission and National Commission deserve to be 
set aside and are accordingly set aside. [Paras 10 and 11]
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Town and 
Country Planning Act, 1973.
List of Keywords
Tender; Allotment of land; Cancellation of allotment; Terms and 
conditions of the NIT; Premium amount; Interlocutory application; 
Interim order; Final relief; National
Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission; State Commission; Revision petition; Lapse of time.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13940 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 29-03-2023 of the National 
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No. 
2808 of 2018
Appearances for Parties
Amit Pawan, Adv. for the Appellant.
Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv. for the Respondent.
1040
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
This present petition is arising out of order dated 29.03.2023 passed 
by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 
“the National Commission”) in Revision Petition No. 2808 of 2018 
whereby the National Commission directed the appellant to handover 
possession of the plot in question to the respondent within three 
weeks from the date the amount is paid along with interest to the 
Indore Development Authority. 
3.	
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant i.e. Indore 
Development Authority which is an authority constituted under the 
Town and Country Planning Act, 1973, issued an advertisement/
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 05.10.1994 in respect of Scheme 
No. 54 offering various plots to the public at large. The respondent 
pursuant to the said advertisement/tender notice dated 05.10.1994 
submitted his offer and was allotted a Plot No. 314 on 02.01.1995 in 
Scheme No. 54 with a payment plan to deposit 50% premium amount 
and lease rent within 30 days from the date of allotment and the rest 
50% was required to be deposited in 12 quarterly instalments. The 
undisputed facts further reveal that the respondent deposited the 
initial amount and did not deposit the balance instalments on time 
and, therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment and 
rules of the authority, the allotment
was cancelled on 22.03.2000. 
4.	
The respondent being aggrieved by the cancellation of allotment 
preferred a Writ Petition No. 174 of 2001 before the Indore Bench 
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Indore Bench of that 
High Court vide order dated 01.08.2006 passed in Writ Petition 
No. 174 of 2001 allowed the writ petition thereby directing the 
Indore Development Authority i.e. the appellant herein to deliver the 
possession of the plot to the writ petitioner i.e. respondent herein 
subject to payment of the remaining outstanding amount within 30 
days from the date of the order, meaning thereby, the allotment of 
the respondent was restored and 30 days’ time was granted to him 
to pay the outstanding dues.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1041
Indore Development Authority v. Dr. Hemant Mandovra
5.	
The respondent pursuant to the order passed by the High Court 
submitted a Demand Draft amounting to Rs 5,72,782/-, though the 
total outstanding amount was Rs. 12,02,592/-. The Demand Draft 
was returned to the respondent as it was not in respect of the total 
outstanding amount. According to the respondent, in response to 
his letter dated 18.06.2008 whereby he requested the appellant 
to reduce the interest and therefore, based upon his request, the 
amount was reduced to Rs. 11,04,948/- by the appellant, which was 
required to be deposited on or before 28.02.2009. The respondent, 
even though the amount was reduced, failed to deposit the amount 
of Rs. 11,04,948/- and took a different route for redressal of his 
grievance by approaching District Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Forum, Indore, (hereinafter referred to as, “District Forum”) by filing a 
consumer complaint No. 391/2009 under Section 12 of the Consumer 
Protection Act, 1986, challenging the demand dated 17.02.2009 and 
for issuance of an appropriate direction for execution of sale deed 
in his favour and the District Forum vide order dated 25.02.2015 
dismissed the complaint on the ground that the amount was not 
deposited as directed by the High Court. 
6.	
The respondent being aggrieved by the order passed by the District 
Forum preferred another writ petition No. 1661/2015 before the 
Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
and the said writ 
petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.04.2015 with the liberty to 
avail the statutory remedy provided under the Consumer Protection 
Act. Thereafter, the respondent preferred an appeal before the 
Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 
Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as, “State Commission”). The State 
Commission admitted the appeal and during the pendency of the 
appeal, the respondent filed an application under Section 13(3B) of 
the Consumer Protection Act, for grant of permission to deposit the 
amount of Rs. 11,04,948/- under protest with the liberty to reclaim 
the said amount. The Indore Development Authority i.e. the appellant 
herein filed its reply stating on affidavit that the total amount of Rs. 
22,73,079/- is outstanding which included the interest. The State 
Commission passed an interim order on 15.12.2017. Though, it was 
an interim order but granted final relief to the respondent by directing 
him to deposit the entire outstanding amount with interest and the 
appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority was directed to place 
the respondent in possession.
1042
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.	
Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the State 
Commission, a revision petition was preferred before the National 
Commission and the National Commission had disposed of the 
revision petition directing the appellant to calculate the interest within 
a period of two weeks and after receiving the amount along with 
interest, to handover the possession of the plot within a period of 
three weeks from the date of receipt of such deposit. 
8.	
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and 
perused the records minutely. 
9.	
It is an undisputed fact that in respect of advertisement/NIT which 
was issued on 05.10.1994, National Commission vide order dated 
29.03.2023 has directed the appellant to accept the deposit made 
by respondent and to allot the plot to him, meaning thereby, after 
the lapse of period of 28 years. In the present case, the respondent 
at the first instance opted to file a writ petition before the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh and a favourable order was also passed in his 
favour on 01.08.2006 directing the respondent to pay the balance 
outstanding amount within 30 days and further directed the appellant 
i.e. Indore Development Authority to handover the possession of 
the plot to the writ petitioner i.e. respondent herein. However, only 
a sum of Rs. 5,72,782/- through a demand draft was presented in 
the month of September, 2006, against the total outstanding dues 
of Rs.
12,02,592/-.
10.	 The appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority has shown 
magnanimity in the matter by reducing the interest vide letter dated 
17.02.2009 and the amount was reduced to Rs. 11,04,948/- which 
was required to be paid on or before 28.02.2009. The respondent, 
not being satisfied even with the reduction of amount, opted for a 
different route for redressal of his grievance by approaching the 
District Forum and the District Forum was justified in dismissing the 
complaint of the respondent. The respondent again approached the 
High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn 
on 08.04.2015 with the liberty to avail statutory remedy provided 
under the Consumer Protection Act and thereafter the respondent 
preferred an appeal before the State Commission against the order 
passed by the District Forum. The State Commission by way of an 
interim order dated 15.12.2017 directed the appellant i.e. Indore 
Development Authority to accept the outstanding amount with interest
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1043
Indore Development Authority v. Dr. Hemant Mandovra
and to deliver the possession of plot in question to the respondent, 
meaning thereby, a final relief was granted by way of an interim 
order and under these circumstances, the matter had reached the 
National Commission. In the considered opinion of this Court, final 
relief could not have been granted by the State Commission on an 
interlocutory application filed in the matter. 
11.	 The other important aspect of the case is that the National Commission 
without considering any ground raised by the appellant has directed 
the appellant to receive and accept the amount from the respondent 
along with interest and handover the possession of the plot in question. 
In our considered opinion, in respect of NIT/advertisement issued on 
05.10.1994, no such order could have been passed by the National 
Commission in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present 
case i.e. after a lapse of period of 28 years. It was the respondent 
who committed default in depositing the balance amount as per the 
terms and conditions of the NIT and even after the first round of 
litigation before the High Court, the respondent did not deposit the 
amount of Rs. 12,02,592/- which was outstanding against him and, 
therefore, at this juncture, after a lapse of 28 years, the question 
of directing the appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority as has 
been done by the National Commission to accept the amount does 
not
arise. Resultantly, the orders passed by the State Commission 
dt. 15.12.2017 and National Commission dt. 29.03.2023 deserve to 
be set aside and are accordingly set aside and it is made clear that 
the appellant i.e. Indore Development Authority shall issue a fresh 
tender in respect of the said plot in question and shall allot the plot 
only by way of auction or by following the due process as per rules. 
12.	 With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed. 
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Adeeba Mujahid, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)