Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/1440/2012

Commissioner Municipal Concil Rajasamand Dirstrict Rajsamand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandra Prakash s/o Mathura Lal Lakhara - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Tiwari

25 Mar 2015

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1440/2012

 

Commissioner Municipal Council, Rajsamand, Distt. Rajsamand (Rajasthan)

Vs.

Chandra Prakash s/o Mathura Lal Lakhara r/o Bohra Bazar, Kankroli, Tehsil & Distt. Rajsamand & ors.

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 329/2013

 

Commissioner Municipal Council, Rajsamand, Distt. Rajsamand (Rajasthan)

Vs.

Chandra Prakash s/o Mathura Lal Lakhara r/o Bohra Bazar, Kankroli, Tehsil & Distt. Rajsamand & ors.

 

REVISION PETITION NO: 09/2014

 

Commissioner Municipal Council, Rajsamand, Distt. Rajsamand (Rajasthan)

2

 

Vs.

Chandra Prakash s/o Mathura Lal Lakhara r/o Bohra Bazar, Kankroli, Tehsil & Distt. Rajsamand & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 25.3.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal - Member

 

Mr. Anil Tiwari counsel for the appellants Municipal Council

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for complainants- respondents

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

The above two appeals and the revision petition are being disposed of by this single order.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a

3

 

piece of land by Municipal Council,Rajsamand vide Patta No. 52 dated 22.10.2001. On 23.11.2009 the complainant applied Municipal Council for conversion of this land for commercial purposes. The Land Conversion Committee of Municipal Council in its meeting on 19.5.2011 decided on the basis of the report of surveyor and other officials to approve the land conversion and the complainant was asked to deposit the requisite fees for this purpose. The complainant deposited Rs.1,52,838/- on 17.6.2011 and Rs. 74,430/- on 6.7.2011. The conversion certificate was not issued by the Municipal Council for a long time. On enquiries the complainant was informed that one Mr. Chandra Shekhar Paliwal has objected to the conversion and has filed an appeal before the Director Local Self, Govt. Department, Jaipur. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the learned DCF. The learned DCF vide order dated 27.9.2012 allowed the complaint and directed the Municipal Council to dispose of the application for land conversion of the complainant within one month.

 

The Municipal Council vide its order dated 19.1.2013 passed an order that since the matter is pending before Director, Local Self Govt. Department, Jaipur and no certificate for land conversion can be issued and the complainant is free to claim his money back from the Municipal Council.

4

 

The complainant filed an application u/s 27 of the C.P.Act for execution of the order passed by the learned DCF on 27.9.2012.

 

The Municipal Council has presented Appeal No. 1440/2012 against the order dated 27.9.2012 and Appeal No. 329/2013 against the order passed by the learned DCF u/s 27 of the C.P.Act. The Revision Petition No. 9/2014 has been filed against the order of the learned DCF accepting a subsequent complaint for issuing of conversion certificate in favour of the complainant.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the matter was pending in appeal before the Director LSG Jaipur, hence no certificate could be issued and the Municipal Council has committed no disobedience of the order passed by the learned DCF. He also argued that no subsequent complaint on the same facts is maintainable and the learned DCF has erred in accepting the second complaint on the same facts. Whereas the learned counsel for the complainant has placed before us the copies of the documents obtained by him from the record of the Municipal Council wherein the land conversion has been approved. He argues that only one Mr.Paliwal has personal enemity with the complainant who filed objection before the Director LSG but there was no stay of proceedings and Municipal Council was duty bound

5

 

to issue the certificate. He further states that proceedings before Director LSG were not prosecuted and matter was dismissed in default on 2.5.2013. Thus, the Municipal Council has committed deficiency in service . It accepted the amount and did not issue the conversion certificate.

 

We have heard the arguments of the respective counsels. The learned DCF has rejected the contention of the Municipal Council that matter was pending before the Director LSG, hence, no certificate can be issued and it allowed the complaint on 27.9.2012. The DCF only directed that application for conversion be disposed off within one month. Vide order dated 19.1.2013 the Municipal Council rejected the application on the same ground that matter was pending before the LSG. There is no merit in Appeal No. 1440/2012 as DCF had only directed the appellants to decide the application.

 

So far as appeal against the order passed by the learned DCF in application u/s 27 of the C.P.Act, the learned counsel has argued that the DCF has not obeyed the order of this Commission whereas the order of DCF was stayed, still the appellants were asked to appear and present the surities.

 

6

 

We have perused the file of the learned DCF and we find that the DCF took cognizance in the matter u/s 27 of the C.P.Act on 31.1.2013 and on 6.3.2013 the Commissioner, Municipal Council was present before the learned DCF and he was ordered to submit surity of Rs. 2000/- for further appearance. The order of the learned DCF had been stayed by the Commission on 8.2.2014. A copy of the stay order was presented on the same day but still the DCF insisted for surity from the appellant. The learned DCF should have stayed the proceedings. We deprecate the practice adopted by the DCF and set aside the order passed on 6.3.2013. The learned DCF shall proceed in accordance with law. The appellant shall be given an opportunity to show cause in proceedings u/s 27 of the C.P.Act only then appropriate orders will be passed. The learned DCF should also take into consideration the fact that appellant has passed an order on 29.1.2013 on the application of the complainant.

 

So far as the Revision Petition No. 9/2014 is concerned, the complainant has submitted a complaint registered at number 39/2013 claiming Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for not issuing the conversion certificate by the Municipal Council and also for direction that certificate may be issued in favour of the complainant. The Municipal Council has filed revision petition on

7

the ground that subsequent complaint on the same facts is not maintainable. We are of the view that this objection was taken by the Municipal Council before the learned DCF and it has been rejected with cost of Rs.500/-. We think that DCF was right in rejecting the application as complainant was given opportunity to file fresh complaint in case he is aggrieved by the order passed on his application for conversion. However, we set aside the order imposing cost of Rs.500/- on Municipal Council.

 

In the result Appeal No: 1440/2012 is dismissed.

 

Appeal No: 329/2013 is partially accepted and order dated 6.3.2013 is set aside. The learned DCF shall decide this application afresh after giving opportunity to Municipal Council to explain whether order of the DCF has been complied with or not.

 

Revision Petition is partially accepted and cost of Rs.500/- is set aside. However, the learned DCF shall proceed with the second complaint in accordance with law.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm