Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/628/2015

Rajasthan Housign Board Through Secreatry - Complainant(s)

Versus

Budhprkash Sen s/o Ramgopal Sen - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.Sethi

27 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 628/2015

 

Rajasthan Housing Board, Head Office, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur through Secretary & ors.

 

Vs.

 

Budh Prakash Sain s/o Ramgopal Sain, r/o Plot No. B 138, Ganesh Nagar, Moti Dungari, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 27.10.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs.Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla - Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. S.C.sethi counsel for the appellant

Mr.Sushil Tilawat counsel for the respondent

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been preferred u/s 27 A against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur whereby the contempt petition has been decided against the appellant and order has been passed that within two months House No.75/161 Mansarovar be allotted to the consumer and further orders has been given.

 

The only contention of the appellant is that executing court has gone beyond its jurisdiction. The District Forum could not go beyond the findings recorded in the main case in execution petition and reliance has been placed on IV (2010) CPJ 377 (NC) Corporate Communication System Vs. Mahesh Choudhary and III (2009) CPJ 142 (NC) Syed Faiz-Ur-Rehman Vs. UP Power Electricity Corporation & ors..

 

There is no dispute about the preposition that executing court could not go beyond decree. Here in the present case the contention of the appellant is that initially the District Forum vide its order dated 11.12.2007 never ordered to allot an independent house to the complainant and they have already allotted Flat No. 82/379 to the complainant vide allotment

3

 

letter dated 3.2.2010. Hence, the order of the executing court is beyond jurisdiction.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the District Forum has ordered that house of low income group be allotted to him and this order has been modified in appeal in terms of cost of house only and he applied only for an independent house. Initially in the year 1988 he has registered a house in his name where the word ' house' has been used. Hence, the impugned order is not beyond jurisdiction.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as the original record of the case.

 

In the year 1988 initially a house has been registered in the name of the complainant and when dispute arises the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum where vide order dated 11.12.2007 the District Forum has ordered to allot a house in low income group on the condition that complainant should deposit amount mentioned in the allotment letter dated 20.9.1988. This order was modified in appeal and the appellate court had ordered that value of 2008 should be assessed and on deposition of the value, house should be

4

 

allotted to the respondent. There was no whisper from the side of the appellant that flat has been allotted to the respondent and the District Forum also ordered that house be allotted to the consumer.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant himself agrees that there are two categories, house and flat and the District Forum has ordered for allotment of a house which is crystal clear from the order dated 11.12.2007. Now in contempt proceedings the District Forum has further ordered that House No. 75/161 be allotted to the complainant on the value of the house to be determined on the rates of 12.11.2008. Hence, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the order of the court below. Further it has been brought to the notice of the court that on 16.8.2013 in lottery House No. 75/161 has been allotted to the complainant -respondent.

 

In view of the matter there is no force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed . Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Vinay Kumar Chawla) (Nisha Gupta)

Member Member President