STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

                                                First Appeal No. 104 of 2015

                                                  Date of Institution: 29.01.2013                       Date of Decision: 02.02.2015

1. Brijit Singh S/o Late S.Achal Singh (GPA of Capt. Prem Singh), Regisdent of House No.3061, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

…..Appellants

                                      VERSUS

1. Estate Officer, Urban Estate, HUDA, Sonepat.
2. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator.

          …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.B.J.Singh, Advocate appeared in person.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the appellant-complainant that Plot No.2152, Sector 23 Sonepat was allotted to Captain Prem Singh (retd.) vide letter dated 29.08.1991. Thereafter allottee entered into an agreement for friendly transfer of the plot to him (complainant) and he made all payments thereafter.  He requested for issuance of NOC for friendly transfer so that he can pursue the matter with HUDA, but, was told  that Rs.Two lacs were due towards him about excess demand.  Prem Singh filed a complaint which was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In short “District Forum”).  HUDA filed appeal bearing No.655 of 2004, which was dismissed by the State Commission on 05.07.2006.    HUDA filed revision petition (RP) No.1952 of 2007, but, was dismissed by Hon’ble National Commission  vide order dated 02.06.2007.  SLP filed by HUDA, was also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.01.2008.   During execution proceedings HUDA issued cheque in favour of Prem Singh,  When he again approached HUDA for issuance of NOC it was told that Rs.3,35,705/- were due.  Office of HUDA is situated in Panchkula, so District forum, Panchkula has jurisdiction to try the complaint.  He requested to grant the following relief, which is as under:-

“a      Quash the unlawful demand of Rs.2,92,869.00 raised by HUDA in respect of Plot No.2152, Sector 23 Sonepat.

B       Direct HUDA to issue NOC in respect of the plot No.2152, Sector 23 Sonepat so that complainant can take further necessary action.

C       Award compensation of Rs.50,000.00 for mental harassment and agony.

D      Award litigation expenses of Rs.11,000.00.”

2.      Respondent-Opposite parties (O.P.) has alleged that complainant was not having right to file complaint in his independent capacity because he was only General Attorney (G.A.) of Prem Singh. Capt. Prem singh has submitted an affidavit dated 26.06.2013 that he did not execute any GPA in connection of plot No.2152, Sector 23 Sonepat.  Rather he has submitted an application to transfer plot No.2152, Sector 23 Sonepat in favour of One Kaptan Singh.  The demand raised by it (HUDA) was justified.  Objections about estopple, accruing cause of action, concealing true facts etc. were also raised.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Forum,  Panchkula dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 18.12.2014 on the ground that Baljeet Singh has no right to file complaint in his independent capacity.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      The moot point involved in the present dispute is locus standi or right of complainant Baljeet Singh to file the complaint.  Complainant has alleged that he is G.A of Prem Singh and has a right to file complaint on his behalf.  Learned District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint on this ground.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  From the perusal of the title of the complaint, it is clear that he has filed complaint in his name and not in the name of Prem Singh.  If he was filing complaint on behalf of Prem Singh then he should have shown Prem Singh as a complainant through him as a GA.  This averment is also not genuine.  From the perusal of the complaint, it is clear that he is claiming his right over the plot on the basis of some family transfer.  For ready reference Para Nos.3 and 4 of the complaint are reproduced as under:-

“3.     That thereafter the allottee entered into an agreement for friendly transfer of the plot to the complainant and all payments thereafter were made by the complainant.

4.      That after some payments were made and the balance amount due was about Rs.33,000.00, an inspection of proposed sector revealed that even layout had not been started.  As such further payments were stopped and HUDA was requested for  issuance of NOC for friendly transfer so that the complainant could pursue the matter with HUDA.”

          From the bare perusal of these paras, it is clear that the complainant is claiming friendly transfer in his favour and on the basis of that transfer he made the payment. It is well settled proposition of law that an immovable property having a value of more than Rs.100/- can only be transferred by way of registered document and not otherwise.  He cannot claim his right over the property on the basis of GPA. 

8.      More so, learned District Forum has discussed the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court and State Commission in Para No.8 and 9 of the impugned order, which are as under:-

“8.     The law on the point was authoritatively  laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Special Leave Petition © No.13917 of 2009 titled as Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Haryana and another decided on 11.10.2011 and our Hon’bnle State Commission has decided the issue in appeal No.712 of 2006 decided on 23.05.2012 titled as Haryana Urban Development authority versus R.T.Batra.

9.      The observations in those rulings are  quoted hereunder:-

“Having considered the rival contentions of   the learned counsel for the parties, it is not disputed that Inderjeet Garg is a Property Dealer who had purchased the plot on the basis of G.P.A. and as a purchaser through G.P.A., he has filed the complaint and further sold this plot to Sudesh Sharma Wife of Lt. A.K.Sharma Resident of 272, Sector 15-A, Faridabad.  At the time of filing complaint, the G.P.A. had no authority to file complaint being no a ‘consumer’ and further when G.P.A. has already sold this property to Sudesh Sharma wife of Ltd. A.K.Sharma, the complainant has no right to file the complaint.  It is a case in which HUDA officials are having with the complainant and new purchaser and illegally transferred the plot in the name of Sudesh Sharma despite the fact that the appeal is pending before the State commission.  The question whether the G.P.A. falls within the definition of ‘consumer’ has been discussed by this Commission in Appeal No.229 of 2006 decided on 22.02.2012, titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Bhupendra Nath Ranjen, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-

”The other aspect of the case is that the  complainant has filed the amended complaint through General Power of Attorney Rameshwar Bansal son of S.R.Bansal. G.P.A. has no interest and could not be  treated as a ‘consumer’ and, therefore, complaint on his behalf is not maintainable.  More so, no G.P.A. has been tendered on the record.  It has not been disclosed by the complainant as to what was the relationship between the complainant and G.P.A. Rameshwar Bansal.  It appears that Rameshwar Bansal who has acted on behalf of allottee, is a property dealer and even in that capacity the General Attorney is trying to acquire rights by avoiding stamp duty.  Complainant Bhupendra Nath Ranjen who has surrendered the plot and filed complaint seeking refund of the surrender value but lateron amended the complaint through G.P.A. As to what is the relationship of the complainant with the G.P.A. has not been explained. The lust of securing the plot by G.P.A. who is a property dealer cannot be allowed to sustain.  It has been seen in number of cases that the property dealers keep an eye on the disputed plot and in connivance with the staff of HUDA who also at the back and call of the property dealers manipulate the things in their favour,   which practice is prevalent in this part of the Country which requires to be curbed. The lust for earning more profits after allotting the plot by HUDA, is increasing day by day, without actual profit reaching to the original allottee.  The purpose of allotting the plots in urban estates, is to provide better facilities with respect to residential as well as commercial plots and the same should not be converted into a profits earning machine. We, therefore, are of the view that once the plot has been surrendered by the original allottee, who initially wanted to take refund the surrender value of the deposited amount but later on fell in lust to get more money from the F.P.A. who is a property dealer, cannot be allowed to retain the plot in such a flimsy manner.  To curb such a tendency, Hon’ble Apex Court has taken a serious view in this regard.  Reference is made to the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C ) No.13917 of 2009 titled as Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Haryana and another decided on 11.10.2011 dealing with consequence of power of Attorney holder acquiring rights, held as under:-

III-Effects of SA/GPA/WILL transactions

3. The earlier order dated 15.05.2009, noted the ill-effects of such SA/GPA/WILL transactions (that is generation of black money, growth of land mafia and criminalization of civil disputes) as under: & quot; recourse to ‘SA/GPA/WILL’ transactions is taken in regard to freehold properties, even when there is no bar or prohibition regarding transfer or conveyance of such property, by the following categories of persons : (a) Vendors with imperfect title who cannot or do not want to execute registered deeds of conveyance.

(b) Purchasers who want to invest undisclosed wealth/income in immovable properties without any public record of the transactions.  The process enables them to hold any number of properties without disclosing them as assets held.

(c ) purchasers who want to avoid the payment of stamp duty and registration charges either deliberately or on wrong advice.  Persons who deal in real estate resort to these methods to avoid multiple stamp duties/ registration fees so as to increase their profit margin.

Whatever be the intention, the consequences are disturbing and far reaching, adversely affecting the economy, civil society and law and order.  Firstly, it enables large scale evasion of income tax, wealth tax, stamp duty and registration fees thereby denying the benefit of such revenue to the government and the public. Secondly, such transactions enable persons with undisclosed wealth/income to invest their black money and also earn profit/income, thereby encouraging circulation of black money and corruption.

This kind of transactions has disastrous collateral effects also.  For example, when the market value increases, many vendors (who effected power of attorney sales without registration) are tempted to resell the property taking advantage of the fact that there is no registered instrument or record in any public office thereby cheating the purchaser.  When the purchaser under such ‘power of attorney sales’ comes to know about the vendors action, he invariably tries to take the help of musclemen to ‘sort out’ the issue and protect his rights.  On the other hand, real estate mafia many a time purchase properties which are already subject to power of attorney sale and then threaten the previous ‘Power of Attorney Sale’ purchasers from asserting their rights. Either way, such power of attorney sales indirectly lead to growth of real estate mafia and criminalization of real estate transactions & quot;

It also makes title verification and certification of title, which is an integral part of orderly conduct of transactions relating to immoveable property, difficult, if not impossible, giving nightmares to bonafide purchasers wanting to own a property with an assurance of good and marketable title.

The fact of the instant case are fully attracted to Suraj Lamp  Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Haryana and another case (supra).   Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant through G.P.A. is not maintainable.  Hence, the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum cannot be allowed to sustain.

This case in hand is fully covered by our earlier decision rendered in Bhupendra Nath Ranjen’s case (supra) which is based on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C ) No.13917 of 2009 titled as Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Haryana and another decided on 11.10.2011.  Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant through G.P.A. is not maintainable which is against the statutory provision of the Consumer Protection Act.”

          As per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in aforesaid case laws that it is clear that G.A has no right to file the complaint.  The complainant is trying to convert benaami transaction into regular one, which is not permissible as per  law.  In  case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Rama Kant Yadava, 44 CPJ 1997 passed by Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna also it was opined that attorney cannot file complaint in independent capacity.  As mentioned in the impugned order dated  18.12.2014 and written statement filed by the opposite party Prem Singh informed that he did not execute GPA about this plot and has requested to transfer this plot in favour of Kaptan Singh. 

9.      The findings of the learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.