Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 2 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) and its Administrator and Estate Officer; Respondent – M/s City View Enterprises.
  • Civil Appeal No.: 7911/2023.
  • Background: The dispute originated from Consumer Complaint No. 202 of 2010 concerning a commercial plot sold at public auction. City View Enterprises purchased the plot and sought a Completion/Occupancy Certificate, which was denied due to zoning violations.
  • NCDRC Involvement:
  • On 1 February 2016, a quorum of two Members of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the consumer claim, holding that the respondent was not a consumer because the transaction involved a commercial plot.
  • The respondent accepted this order for five years without challenge.
  • In 2021, City View Enterprises filed Miscellaneous Application No. 106 of 2021 seeking a direction to issue the Occupancy/Completion Certificate, despite the earlier order being final.
  • The NCDRC, on 17 April 2023, recalled its 2016 order and allowed the Misc. Application, directing the authorities to issue the certificate.
  • Court Proceedings:
  • The appellants contended that the 2023 NCDRC order was illegal, untimely, and contrary to statutory provisions and to the Supreme Court’s own order in CA No. 236 of 2022 (dated 7 January 2022), which had held that such a Misc. Application was not maintainable in a disposed matter.
  • The respondent argued that it was a consumer and that a Haryana state scheme could address its grievance.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCDRC order dated 17‑04‑2023, and revived the NCDRC order dated 01‑02‑2016.
  • The Court held that the respondent’s Misc. Application was barred by lapse of five years and that the reliefs sought were substantially different from the original prayer.
  • It emphasized that the inception of the NCDRC proceedings was misconceived.
  • The Court directed that any further grievance by the respondent must be pursued before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
  • All pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Topics: Consumer Law, Real Estate Zoning