BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.174 of 2019
Date of Institution: 09.04.2019
Date of Decision: 08.01.2020
Vandana Arora aged about 40 years wife of Sh. Anil Kumar Arora son of Sh. Ram Narain Arora, resident of H. No.959- HUDA colony, Sector 20, Sirsa (Haryana).
………Complainant.
Versus
1. District Estate Office, HUDA Sector-20, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Chairman H.S.V.P. Chandigarh.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
Ms SUKHDEEP KAUR ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Kumar Arora authorized representative on behalf of complainant.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 14.5.2012 complainant had purchased a plot bearing No.959-P situated in Sector-20 HUDA, Sirsa from Smt. Manjit Kaur which was registered in her name and on 25.4.2012 she had applied for transfer of the same in her name to the HUDA department. That the department had to transfer the same in 15 days as per rules which period expired on 10.5.2012 but as till 14.5.2012 the department did not issue re-allotment letter to her then she after understanding some delay in Govt. work got sale deed executed from Manjit Kaur in her name on 14.5.2012 and started waiting that within 2/4 days the department will transfer the plot in the name of Manjit Kaur and thereafter she will complete the work of transfer of plot in her name but that waiting became so long for years. That in this regard husband of complainant namely Anil Arora contacted with the Estate officer of department at Sirsa and requested to transfer the plot in her name but the officials of the department did not pay any heed in this regard and work of transfer remained pending. That immediately thereafter he met with Estate Officer in this regard but seeing no result, the husband of complainant by using the right of information demanded information regarding transfer of plot and it came to know that the order regarding transfer of this plot had been passed by Sh. Munish Nagpal, the then Estate Officer on 4.5.2012 but Sohan Lal Assistant intentionally prolonged the same for uncertain reasons. That then husband of complainant met with Amarjit Singh the then Estate Officer and requested to complete this work but he refused to do so. The husband of complainant then personally met to Administrator (HUDA), Hisar and made a complaint to him on 4.12.2012 upon which Administrator, Hisar took immediate action and asked Amarjit Singh the then Estate Officer to submit his action report but Amarjit Singh in order to prolong the matter submitted his wrong report and upon which Administrator, Hisar asked him to meet him personally on 20.5.2013 and he was made aware about the reply of Estate Officer. That complainant immediately pointed out several faults in that reply in the notice of Administrator, Hisar upon which Administrator Hisar constituted a committee of one Member i.e. City Magistrate, Sirsa and directed to submit investigation report. That Enquiry Officer in his report also found their allegations as correct and found Sohan Lal, Assistant Estate Officer as guilty for intentionally avoiding the re-allotment of Plot No.959-P upon which Administrator Hisar submitted his report to his higher authority i.e. Chief Administrator, Huda, Panchkula, Haryana and recommended for action against Sohan Lal, Assistant Estate Officer. Then Chief Administrator by taking immediate action ordered to submit charge-sheet and to transfer Sohan Lal within seven days but the then Estate Officer Paramjit Singh neither submitted any charge sheet against Sohan Lal nor relieved Sohan Lal by transfer nor plot was re-allotted. That husband of complainant Anil Kumar had to make rounds to the office of ops but none of the Estate Officer was ready to reallot the plot and to go against their Assistant despite the fact that he was found guilty. It is further averred that husband of complainant had to take several rounds to the office of ops at Hisar and had to cover distance of 200 Kms. in up and down but they could not get any result because of transfers of Administrators and non availability of time to some Administrators and ultimately on 24.4.2017 the then Administrator Hisar met him and understood the matter very well and on 26.5.2017 after ignoring all the objections raised by Sohan Lal Assistant and considering them right passed order to the then Estate Officer to reallot the plot immediately and as per that order re-allotment letter of her plot was issued on 16.7.2017 for which period of more than five years was wasted and penalty amount of Rs.7873 for delay in transfer of plot was also recovered from her. It is further averred that in the month of May, 2012 she was willing to settle in Delhi after sale of this plot for which she was shifted to Sirsa in 2007 and due to the act and conduct of Sohan Lal Assistant it could not be possible. That at that time minimum value (circle rate) of her plot was Rs.5,70,000/- and sale deed for this amount was also executed. The market price of her plot was more than that but the official of HUDA sold the plot no.963 at the rate of Rs.4,91,200/- through E-auction. It is further averred that in those five years, she has suffered huge financial loss and her husband has also suffered loss of work and besides this they have also suffered lot of harassment and mental tension. Hence, this complaint.
On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that contents of para no.1 of the complaint are correct to the extent of purchase of plot no.959-P, Sector 20, HUDA, Sirsa but rest of the contents are wrong and incorrect, hence denied. As a matter of fact, plot no. 959-P Sector 20, Part-II, Sirsa was allotted by the ops Shri Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Veerbhan Manghu vide allotment letter no.1074 dated 13.2.2002 under EWS category. As per the condition no.24 of the allotment letter the said plot could not be transferred by way of transfer sale, gift or mortgage for a period of 10 years. It is further submitted that allottee had no right and authority to transfer the above plot by way of transfer, sale, gift or mortgage to any other person for a period of 10 years. The possession of this plot was delivered to the allottee at the spot. After deposit of entire price of this plot, the allottee was issued the conveyance deed on 13.7.2006. It is further submitted that Shri Vijay Kumar allottee of the above plot had appointed Shri Ashwani Kumar Khanna as his General Power of attorney vide registered GPA No.82 dated 1.5.2002 and the said General Attorney of allottee Vijay Kumar had got executed the conveyance deed No.2973 dated 13.7.2006 in favour of allottee Vijay Kumar. It is further submitted that the allottee Vijay Kumar in utter defiance of the conditions of the allotment letter, transferred the aforesaid plot through his General Attorney Ashwani Kumar in favour of Smt. Manjeet Kaur vide sale deed no.6675 dated 28.9.2006 without prior permission of the ops and the allottee also did not produce the sale deed before the ops. It is further submitted that after the sale deed in favour of Smt. Manjeet Kaur, the allottee Vijay Kumar applied for transfer of above plot on 25.4.2012. In the application, the photograph of Vijay Kumar was duplicate, but he did not furnish any ID proof. However, on 4.5.2012, Vijay Kumar filed an affidavit before the ops, wherein he stated that the General Power of Attorney given by him in favour of Ashwani Kumar be cancelled. Thereafter, the case was put up before the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sirsa on 4.5.2012. The Estate Officer called the parties for personal hearing vide letter no.1181 dated 28.5.2012, but none came present for personal hearing. Thereafter, another letter no.319 dated 23.1.2013 was written for personal hearing, but none came present. Smt. Manjeet Kaur had filed a suit against the transfer for seeking transfer of above plot in her favour but the said suit was dismissed by the Ld. Court on 25.5.2015. Smt. Manjeet Kaur sold out the said plot to the complainant vide registered sale deed no.1095 dated 15.5.2012. The Administrate, HUDA, Hisar vide his office order no.6786 dated 26.5.2017 has ordered for transfer of the above plot in favour of Smt. Manjeet Kaur and then in the name of Vandana Arora and on the basis of same, the said plot has been transferred in the name of complainant vide order dated 8.7.2017 and completion certificate has also been issued on 31.10.2017. Remaining contents of the complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
The parties then led their respective evidence.
We have heard representative of complainant and learned counsel for the ops and have perused the case file carefully.
The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. She has also furnished copies of documents Ex.C/1 to Ex.C18. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Executive Engineer- cum- Estate Officer as Ex.RW1/A and copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R14.
It is undisputed fact between the parties that originally plot no. 959-P, Sector 20, Partt-II, Sirsa was allotted to one Vijay Kumar son of Veerbhan vide allotment letter no.1074 dated 13.2.2002 under EWS category with terms and conditions and possession of plot was delivered to the allottee at the spot. It is further undisputed that after deposit of sale consideration of the plot, allottee was issued conveyance deed on 13.7.2006. It is further undisputed that aforesaid Vijay Kumar through his general power of attorney Ashwani Kumar had sold out the plot to one Manjit Kaur vide sale deed dated 28.9.2006 and Manjit Kaur further sold out the plot in question to complainant Vandana Arora.
The bone of contention between the parties is qua transfer of ownership of the plot in question in the record of ops. As per version of complainant, she approached the ops in the year 2012 for transfer of the plot in question in the name of complainant from name of Manjit Kaur the second owner. But however, same was not transferred till 16.7.2017 and in this way she had to approach from pillar to post in the department of ops and also to other dignitaries. She made complaints even to CM office etc. The complainant was fully harassed and tortured by officials of the ops especially by one Sohan Lal Assistant against whom order of transfer as well as charge sheet was passed by the Chief Administrator and also charge sheet was prepared against him on the basis of inquiry duly conducted by City Magistrate. There was inordinate delay in transfer of the plot in the name of complainant for which complainant has sought compensation. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the ops that as per condition No.24 of the allotment letter, plot could not be transferred prior to stipulated period of 10 years. Since the plot in question was sold by Vijay Kumar original allottee to one Manjit Kaur and she further sold the plot to present complainant but however, sale was made by Vijay Kumar as well as Manjit Kaur by violating the allotment condition. The ops have acted in due course of time by following the procedure and transferred the plot in the name of present complainant and there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of ops and ops are not liable to pay any compensation.
From the record of ops, it is apparently clear that complainant had applied for transfer of this plot in the year 2012, but however, same was transferred on 16.7.2017 with the order of Administrator. It is undisputed fact that original allottee was under legal obligation to comply with the condition no.24 of the allotment letter by which he could not sell the plot prior to the period of 10 years though he sold out the same to Manjit Kaur before period of 10 years and Manjit Kaur further sold out the plot to present complainant in the year 2012 but it is apparently clear from the record that when complainant had applied for transfer of the plot, the period of ten years had already been expired, but however, officials of the ops continued to delay matter on one pretext or the other and in order to get the plot transferred complainant and her representative had to approach the officers of the ops up to the Chief Administrator and also made many complaints against the officials of the ops in order to get plot transferred and lastly at the end plot was transferred in the name of complainant but it took about five years which is clearly deficiency of service and unfair practice on the part of officials of ops for which ops are liable to compensate the complainant.
In view of above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant and we further direct to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the ops will be liable to pay interest @7% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:08.01.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
