PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the complainant- Mrs. Sunita, heard at length.        Sh. Asha Ram S/o Chunni Lal R/o Village Morna, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, was bhumidhar of agricultural land in Khata No. 6 Khasa No. 74/1 in Village Agaharpur District Gautam Budh Nagar.  The said land was acquired by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) by notification dated 19.09.1976 and possession was taken on 28.101976 and compensation of the land was paid on 11.05.1997.  Unfortunately, Sh. Asha Ram expired on 23.12.1977 leaving behind two daughters Mohro, Hanso and one daughter in Law- Sunita.  The complaint has been filed by the said Sunita.

2.      The complainant obtained successor certificate issued by the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar on 01.09.2003 certifying the death of Asha Ram afersaid on 23.12.1977.  Legal heirs of Asha Ram namely Mohra aged about 80 years, Hanso aged about 60 years  (both daughters) and complainant Sunita (daughter in Lal) and her two sons Chaman aged about 18 years and Sachin aged about 10 years (grand sons of Asha Ram) and one grand daughter aged about 13 years (Asha Ram’s grand daughter).  Asha Ram had only one son named Dalchand, husband of Sunita- the complainant.  Sh. Dalchand unfortunately died in the year 1998, leaving behind his wife and two male members Chaman and Sachin.

3.      In the meantime, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) issued an advertisement for allotment in terms of Residential Plots pursuant to announcement of aforesaid scheme by Noida. Chaman submitted an application on 01.12.2004 for registration under the aforesaid scheme in the category of villagers for the residential plot and submitted an application and draft in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- dated 31.12.2004 of Canara Bank towards payment of registration fees on 02.07.2005.  The final list of successful candidates was published where the name of Chaman figured.  The said scheme was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court and the list of the successful candidates was cancelled and the allottees were returned fees of Rs. 49,000/- each.  Rs. 1,000/-  still remained in the Bank during the year 2005.  As per direction of the Hon’ble High Court, fresh list was prepared on 02.11.2008 wherein the name of Mr. Chaman was conspicuously missing.  On 03.11.2008.  Sh. Chaman made representation to Noida authorities but it did not ring the bell.  Unfortunately, Sh. Chaman also died on 10.02.2009, leaving behind him his mother i.e. the complainant and one brother namely Sachin, aged about 19 years.  The complainant sought  information under Right to Information Act 2005.  The complainant was not satisfied with the RTI information.  Appeal was preferred to direct the Noida authorities to dispose of the representation dated 11.05.2012 and 16.05.2012 by the complainant by a speaking order, within a stipulated time.  Legal notice was also issued on 22.08.2013 and 12.09.2013 to the OPs- Andhra Bank-OP-1, Branch Manager Andhra Bank-OP-2 and M/s New Okhla Industrial Development Authority –OP-3.  Thereafter, the present complaint was filed.  It is stated that the plot which is to be allotted to the complainant is worth more than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.  Consequently, the complaint was filed with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, requested that Hon’ble Forum may kindly be pleased to direct defendants, its officials jointly and severally to pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000.00 (Rs. One crore only) , alongwith interest from the date of withdrawal of amount till actual realization with interest @18% p.a. pendent lite, with Rs. 1,00,000.00(Rupees One Lac Only) for mental harassment, agony, torture and the cost of the notice and proceedings, further grant any other relief which hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the complaint.”

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant submits that they are the sufferers and relief should be granted to them by this Commission.  He further submits that he explained the complainant’s grievance in the complaint itself.

5.      We are unable to countenance these feckless arguments.  The complainant wants to make bricks without straw.  First of all, we have no power to direct the RTI to give the correct report.  Secondly, complainant is not a consumer.  The plot is not yet allotted to him.  Counsel for the complainant submits that Rs. 1,000/- are still lying with the Bank.  This amount was deposited in the year 31.12.2004.  In the second list, it did not include the name of Chaman on 02.11.2008.  No complaint was filed within two years, from that very day.  Case is barred by time.  Moreover, that is the order of the Hon’ble High Court.  The list was changed due to intervention  of the Hon’ble High Court.  This Commission cannot sit over the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.  If the complainant has some grouse, she must approach the Hon’ble High Court, which is already seized of the matter.  The skimble scamble explanation given by the complainant is of no help to her.  She has in vain tried to wrench the facts from their real significance.  The duty casts on this Commission is to tweezering out the trash and to winnow the truth from falsehood.  Complainant has been misguided and misled to file this complainant.  The complaint is, therefore, dismissed.  Further, she is at liberty to seek redressal of her grievances before the appropriate Civil Court, High Court or appropriate Forum as per Law.