­BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Execution No. 06 of 2012

Date of Institution : 20.01.2012

Date of Decision : 6.11.2015

Jaswant Singh Bhatia S/o S. Sawaya Singh, R.O I, Victoria Lane, Queens Road, Amritsar

...Applicant/Complainant

Vs.

Amritsar Improvement Trust, through its Chairman, Amritsar

....Respondent/Opp.party

Application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the applicant: Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate

For the respondent: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member & Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1. Applicant moved the present application u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for the implementation of the order passed by this Forum dated 22.11.2004 and the order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission dated 18.10.2011. The applicant submitted that the opposite party was directed to allot an alternative plot to the complainant/applicant at appropriate place preferably at or near the place where the alternative accommodation has been allotted to the local displaced persons of the concerned scheme. Opposite party was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 50000/- to the complainant. Opposite party preferred appeal against the order of this Forum dated 22.11.2004 before the Hon'ble State Commission and the Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 18.10.2011 has modified that order of this Forum and held that jaswant Singh applicant is entitled to allotment of a plot. If a plot is not available as per the direction of the District Forum, the plot in any other scheme may be alloted to him. The amount of compensation was also set-aside . But inspite of that opposite party has not implemented /executed the order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission. Ld.counsel for the applicant submitted that opposite party/respondent is liable to be proceeded against u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Notice of this application was given to the opposite party/respondent , who appeared through their counsel Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate, who submitted that as per the order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission dated 18.10.2011 applicant is entitled to a plot and not to an alternative plot and the Hon'ble State Commission has also held that if a plot is not available as per the directions of the District Forum, the plot in any other scheme may be alloted to the applicant. The Hon'ble State Commission has also set-aside the award of compensation of Rs. 50000/- given to the applicant/complainant to be paid by the opposite party/respondent. He further pointed out that the complainant was not the owner of the land/property acquired by the State but he was a tenant in the premises acquired by the State. Further the complainant has also got compensation against that property bearing No. 48/3. As per order of the Hon'ble State Commission dated 18.10.2011 the opposite party/respondent alloted plot No. B-805 measuring 50 sq.yds at 340 Acre Area Development Scheme, Amritsar ( Shri Prithvi Raj Sareen Nagar, Amritsar) vide allotment letter No. AIT/SS/3247 dated 30.7.2013 at reserve price . He also produced on record the copy of that allotment letter dated 30.7.2013. He further submitted that the applicant did not deposit even a single penny towards the installments of the said plot. The opposite party has, therefore, properly complied with the order of the Hon'ble State Commission. He submitted that there is no merit in this application and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the record of this case.

4. Ld.counsel for the applicant submitted that this forum vide order dated 22.11.2004 has directed the opposite party/respondent to allot an alternative plot to the complainant/applicant at appropriate place preferably at or near the place where the alternative accommodation has been alloted to the local displaced persons of the concerned scheme. Opposite party/respondent has not alloted alternative plot i.e. plot of the same status of the property of the applicant which was acquired by the State and that too at or near the place where the alternative accommodation has been alloted to the local displaced persons of the concerned scheme, but was alloted plot at 340 Acre Area Development Scheme ( Shri Prithvi Raj Sareen Nagar, Amritsar). So the opposite party/respondent has not complied with the order of this Forum . Here we do not agree with this contention of the ld.counsel for the applicant because the order passed by this Forum dated 22.11.2004 has merged into the orders of the Hon'ble State Commission in appeal i.e. order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission vide which the Hon'ble State Commission partly accepted the appeal filed by the opposite party/respondent i.e. Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar and set-aside the award of compensation of Rs. 50000/- and also modified the order of this Forum dated 22.11.2004 to the extent that Jaswant Singh is held entitled to the allotment of a plot and not an alternative plot and it was further held by the Hon'ble State Copmmission that if a plot is not available as per the directions of the District Forum, the plot in any other scheme may be alloted to him. So as per the order of the Hon'ble State Commission the applicant is entitled to a plot and that too in any scheme i.e. in any other Area Development Scheme developed by the opposite party. It may also be mentioned here that the complainant was a tenant and not the owner of the property which was acquired by the State. As per the orders of the Hon'ble State Commission, opposite party i.e. Amritsar Improvement Trust has alloted plot No. B-805 measuring 50 sq.yds in 340 Acre Area Development Scheme (Shri Prithvi Raj Sareen Nagar, Amritsar) vide allotment letter No. AIT/SS/3247 dated 30.7.2013 at minimum reserve price to the applicant. The opposite party has produced on record the said allotment letter. So the opposite party has fully complied with the orders passed by the Hon'ble State Commission dated 18.10.2011.

5. Consequently we hold that there is no merit in the present execution application and the same is hereby dismissed. Papers be consigned to the record room.

6.11.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) ( Anoop Sharma )

Member Member