Haryana

Kurukshetra

298/2016

Vikas Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

Moti Ram

29 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.298 of 2016.

Date of instt:02.11.2016. 

                                                                         Date of Decision: 29.10.2018.

1. Vikas Kumar
2. Deepak Kumar, both sons of Moti Ram,

    residents of House No.545, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra

                                                                ……….Complainants.    

                        Versus

                                                            

1. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana, Sector-6,  Panchkula.
2. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-4, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

               

Present :    Sh. Moti Ram, Advocate for complainants.

Sh. Vikarant Kundu, Advocate for OPs.

                      

ORDER

                                                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainants Vikas Kumar and another against Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and another, the opposite parties.

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainants submitted an application dated 15.6.2010 alongwith civil court decree dated 25.3.1991 in the office of OP No.2 through courier for change of ownership of house No.545/13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.  The notices with regard to 3^rd installment compensation of plot No.545/13 including whole sector-13 (Rs.56,500/-) were sent by Op No.2.  The Ops were requested to withdraw the notice of enhancement as the complainants have already paid the whole amount as per direction of the court of Shri R.K. Sodhi, learned Civil Judge, Kurukshetra.  The Ops do not change the ownership until and unless dues are cleared by the complainants.  After long correspondence, OP No.2 passed a speaking order dated 10.2.2014 wherein, it was decided that the present 3^rd enhancement case is more than 18 years old and maximum allottes have already deposited the amount in the year 2002 and 2004.  So, the representation filed by Resident Welfare Association is hereby decided and complainants were asked to deposit Rs.1800/- only.  Since, the dues were settled, then the complainants were asked to submit indemnity bond, affidavits, requisite fee etc. for change of ownership and an application dated 12/16.12.2014 was submitted in the office of OP No.2.  The Ops leaving aside the entire correspondence, referred application dated 12/16.12.2014 submitted by the complainants and informed that the complainants were advised to get the subject matter published in two National Leading Newspapers at their expenses so that further action is taken.  From the above said letter dated 24.4.2015 of OP No.2, it is clear that the contents of decree were to be published in newspaper for change of ownership but in fact HUDA plot transfer policy 2013 does not cover the court decree.  Therefore, the court decree should have been implemented straight way without any formality of public notice. However, the complainants have already deposited Rs.1125/- administrative charges for change of ownership. The complainants have represented to Op No.1 and also to C.M. Window, Kurukshetra but OP No.2 is biased and had made the prestigious issue and gave negative reply on her behalf. The complainants have also got served a legal notice through their counsel to the Ops to admit the claim of complainants but they refused to admit the same.  Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service and is misuse of power on the part of OPs. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer that the Ops be directed to implement the court order dated 25.3.1991 so that ownership of House No.545/13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra may be changed in the name of complainants and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, torture etc.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainants have no locus standi to file and  maintain the present complaint; that the complaint is absolute false, frivolous and concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The complainants have concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and the true facts are that the decree submitted by the complainants is pertaining to the year, 1991 and the original allottee had died on 25.6.2011 and during his life time the decree was not with the answering Ops; that no objection of all the legal heirs are well required for change of ownership and same was duly communicated to the complainants vide this office letter bearing Memo No.367 dated 12.1.2015 and 4387 dated 17.4.2015, 6459 dated 28.8.2015 and 1007 dated 14.3.2016 but the complainants have not submitted the requisite NOCs/Affidavits from the legal heirs as per HUDA policy, so the complainants are not entitled for any relief from the answering Ops.  Thus, the present complaint is not maintainable at all, in any manner and deserves dismissal with heavy and special costs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.             In support of his case, the Counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C18 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainants.

5.             On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainants contended that the complainants gave an application on 15.06.2019 (Annexure C-1) with decree dt. 25.03.1991 of the Civil Court to the Ops for change the ownership on the basis of decree but the Ops sent a letter dt. 24.04.2015 (Annexure C-11) to them in which the Ops advised them for publication.  After that the complainants applied under R.T.I. regarding change of ownership from the Ops.  The Ops have given reply of the said R.T.I. to the complainants i.e. Annexure C-12.  Counsel of the complainants contended that the application under R.T.I. was given by the complainants to know the reason in which circumstances, the publication is required in case of change of ownership.  Annexure C-12 clearly shows that in four cases, the publication is required in case of transfer of immovable property to legal heir after the death of allottee or re-allottee.  First in case of death of allottee or re-allottee, second transfer on the basis of registered will, third on the basis of unregistered will and fourth transfer on the basis of sale deed.  Counsel of complainants contended that in his case, there is no need of publication because it is a case of court decree.  He further contended that the Ops are harassing the complainants, so, the civil court order/decree dated 25.03.1991 may kindly be ordered to be implemented straight way without any formality of publication and L.R. so that the ownership of H.No.545/13, U.E. Kurukshetra may be changed in the name of complainants and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- may also be awarded to the complainants.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops contended that the main allottee is Manohari Devi.  The applicants are the grandsons of Manohari Devi.  First point he contended that there may be more legal heirs other than the complainants.  The second point raised by the counsel of Ops that the copy of decree is dated 25.03.1991.  During her life time, the main allottee Manohari Devi did not apply to the department regarding this decree and her death was occurred on 25.06.2011, copy of death certificate of Manohari Devi is placed on the file, which is not exhibited by the complainants.  The third point raised by counsel of Ops that it is beyond the limitation.  The article 136 of Limitation Act clearly shows that the implementation of decree is within 12 years.  After 12 years, it cannot be executed.  So, the present complaint must be dismissed on this point also.  It is also argued by the counsel of Ops that this is a civil court decree.  The Consumer Forum has no power to execute that decree.  The counsel of Ops further contended that the Ops have written many letters i.e. Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 regarding the formalities of the change of ownership of plot no.545/13, U.E. Kurukshetra.  The counsel of Ops argued that they have no objection to change the ownership if no objection certificate is given by all the legal heirs of complainants but till today they have not given no objection certificate to them.

9.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and after perusal of the file, it is an admitted fact by both the parties that decree was passed by the Civil Court on 25.03.1991.  There is no application regarding the change of ownership during the lifetime of real allottee Manohari Devi and the Ops have not denied the change of ownership.  The Ops have written many letters to the complainants regarding the change of ownership and to give no objection certificate from all legal heirs.  The complainants have not submitted the no objection certificate from all the legal heirs to the Ops.  Moreover, this Forum has no power to execute the civil court decree.  Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops. 

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:29.10.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member