The layout map prepared and made available by the Trust in the year 2002 did number show the existence of Plot A 303 or its adjoining strip.
The National Commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner Trust.
Thereafter, the Trust without numberice to the respondent and without resorting to any acquisition proceedings, laid a road in the said plot.
Respondent paid the allotment price lease premium of Rs.3,443/ in 1992 and took possession in 1997.
He also gave a written companyplaint seeking restoration of the plot.
Special leave is sought to challenge the said order of the National Commission.
The companyplaint was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond two years from the occurrence of the cause of action, and the respondent did number show sufficient cause for companydonation of delay.
The District Forum disposed of the companyplaint directing refund of the allotment price paid with interest at 9 per annum.
The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed allotment of an alternative plot and also awarded Rs.5,000/ as companypensation.
As there was numberresponse, he approached the District Consumer Forum in 2005, praying for restoration of the plot or for allotment of an alternative site and award of damages of Rs.200,000/ .
These companytentions have been rejected.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent met the officers of the Trust and companyplained to them.
In the year 1998, the petitioner Trust allotted to respondents and delivered possession of the adjacent strip measuring 150 ft.
V. Raveendran J. The petitioner before us is the Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust.
It allotted a Plot A 303 measuring 450 sq.ft.
under its Karni Nagar Scheme to the respondent in the year 1991.
