DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.223 of 23-05-2011 Decided on 29-09-2011
Mukhtiar Singh S/o Sh. Jangir Singh, Resident of Street No.15, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, aged about 64 years. .......Complainant Versus
The Improvement Trust, Bathinda, through its Chairman. State of Punjab, through Collector, Bathinda, District Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. N.K.Jeet, counsel for the complainant For Opposite parties: Sh. S.M.Goyal, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was allotted plot No.177 measuring 108 Square Yards in the category of Defence in 49.50 Acre Development Scheme, vide Improvement Trust Bathinda letter No.444/ITB dated 19.12.1999 for a total sale price of Rs.1,44,000/- and the complainant had paid the said amount in end of year 2001. In the mean time, the plot allotted to the complainant, was changed from No.177 to No.111 but its possession was not given to him. The complainant was informed by the opposite party No.1 vide letter No.2068 dated 06.09.2002 that the Trust has not been able to hand over the possession of the plot allotted to him, so as per instructions of the Govt., draws for providing available/alternative plot to him, shall be held on 18.09.2002 in the office of the opposite party No.1 but no alternative plot was delivered to the complainant. The complainant was informed that the plot allotted to him, has been illegally occupied by one Bakhtaur Singh. The complainant has alleged that on 21.08.2006, the Civil Writ Petition No.13408 of 2003 filed by the said Bakhtaur Singh as case titled Bakhtaur Singh Vs Land Acquisition Tribunal Improvement Trust, Bathinda and others which was dismissed by the Double Bench of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the complainant was told that legal proceedings have been initiated to get his plot freed of illegal encroachment and its possession shall be given to him as soon as it is got vacated but in fact, the opposite party No.1 was in league with the illegal encroacher and was deliberately not getting the plot vacated. The complainant many times requested the opposite party No.1 to give him the possession of the plot, allotted to him or to provide any alternative plot but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. The complainant has also served a legal notice to the opposite parties but the opposite parties have failed to handover the possession of the plot in question, allotted to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. The allotment in question is of 19.02.1999 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 23.05.2011. The present complaint is not maintainable as the same is of 23.05.2011 whereas the affidavit in support of complaint is dated 19.05.2011. As per Section 97 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, no case is maintainable against the Trust or any Trustee or officer in respect of anything done lawfully and in good faith. Further, as per Section 101 of Act, no act done of proceedings taken by Trust under the Act shall be questioned in Court of law. The plot in question No.111 is in illegal and forcible possession of one Bakhtaur Singh S/o Mal Singh and he has already filed writ petition and number of other litigations against the Trust and this fact is well within the knowledge of the complainant but he has opted not to implead said Bakhtaur Singh as a party. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the plot No.177 originally alloted to the complainant fell in the area left for Bus Stand to be transferred in this locality and as such, plot No.111 was allotted against the same to the complainant subject to terms and conditions of the Trust. Even otherwise, the land falling in plot No.111 was encroached upon and as such, the said illegal occupants were posing threat to the Trust, so the possession of the said plot to the complainant could not be delivered. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the writ petition filed against order dated 31.03.2003, which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court with some observations. The Trust had filed petition dated 14.06.2007 under Punjab Public Premises and Law Act, 1973 which was dismissed by Sh. KPS Mahi, P.C.S., Collector, Sub Division, Bathinda in file No.20/PPP Act vide order dated 28.11.2008. The said appeal was accepted vide order dated 20.07.2009 and the case was remanded to Collector, Sub Division, Bathinda for fresh decision who vide order dated 22.10.2009 again dismissed the eviction application of Trust. So, the Improvement Trust again filed appeal file No.1/PP Act of 25.11.2009. The said appeal was dismissed with the observations that since the matter was pending with Government for decision and till the decision is taken by the Government, the Trust cannot evict Bakhtaur Singh. Thereafter, the case of Bakhtaur Singh was again sent to Punjab Government/concerned higher authorities for appropriate direction, vide Resolution No.100 of Improvement Trust, Bathinda but the State Government had rejected the said recommendation and resolution No.100 of Trust. The competent authority of Punjab State, Local Bodies Department, Chandigarh has rejected the claim of occupant and as such, the Trust is planning to file fresh eviction application against Bakhtaur Singh. Since, the Trust is not in actual possession of plot, allotted to the complainant and as such, the possession of the same cannot be delivered by the Trust to the complainant. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. Admittedly, the plot bearing No.177 measuring 108 Square Yards in the category of Defence in 49.50 Acre Development Scheme, vide Improvement Trust Bathinda letter No.444/ITB dated 19.12.1999 for a total sale price of Rs.1,44,000/- was allotted to the complainant. The entire sale price of the said plot was paid by the complainant by end of the year 2001. The said allotted plot No.177 was changed to plot No.111 but the possession of the said plot was not given to the complainant despite repeated requests. As the land falling in plot No.111 was encroached upon and as such, the said illegal occupants were posing threat to the Trust and the possession of the said plot to the complainant could not be delivered. The plot so issued to the complainant, is illegally occupied by one Bakhtaur Singh and the matter was under litigation. The complainant was asked by the opposite parties to wait for result of this litigation. On 21.08.2006, the Civil Writ Petition No.13408 of 2003 filed by the said Bakhtaur Singh as case titled Bakhtaur Singh Vs Land Acquisition Tribunal Improvement Trust, Bathinda and others, that was dismissed by the Double Bench of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The complainant was conveyed by the opposite parties that the legal proceedings have been initiated to get his plot freed of illegal encroachment and its possession shall be given to him as soon as it is got vacated. 6. The complainant has submitted that the opposite party No.1 i.e. Improvement Trust, Bathinda was in league with the illegal encroacher and was deliberately not getting the plot vacated. The complainant had made several oral as well as written representations to the opposite party No.1 to give him the possession of the plot, allotted to him or to provide any alternative plot but to no avail. He has also served a legal notice upon the opposite parties but the opposite parties have failed to handover the possession of the plot in question, allotted to the complainant. The complainant has taken the support of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.496 of 2002 titled as Salem Advocates, Bar Association Tamil Nadu Vs Union of India. The time of 12 years has already been passed and he had deposited the entire price a decade ago but the opposite parties have failed to give him the possession of the above mentioned plot. 7. The opposite parties have submitted that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. Under Section 97 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, no case is maintainable against the Trust or any Trustee or officer in respect of anything done lawfully and in good faith with due care and attention. As per Section 101 of Act, no act done of proceedings taken by Trust under the Act shall be questioned in Court of law. On this score, the present complaint is not maintainable. The opposite parties have themselves admitted that the plot No.111 is in illegal and forcible possession of one Bakhtaur Singh and he has already filed Writ Petition and number of other litigations against the Trust and this fact is well within the knowledge of the complainant but the complainant has opted not to implead said Bakhtaur Singh as a party in the case. Although, he is a very necessary party and in his absence, all points in controversy between the parties cannot be adjudicated. The Trust had filed petition dated 14.06.2007 under Punjab Public Premises and Law Act, 1973 which was dismissed by Sh. KPS Mahi, P.C.S., Collector, Sub Division, Bathinda in file No.20/PPP Act vide order dated 28.11.2008. The said appeal was accepted vide order dated 20.07.2009 and the case was remanded to Collector, Sub Division, Bathinda for fresh decision who vide order dated 22.10.2009 again dismissed. The Trust again filed appeal file No.1/PP Act of 25.11.2009. The said appeal was dismissed with the observations that since the matter was pending with Government for decision and till the decision is taken by the Government, the Trust cannot evict Bakhtaur Singh. Thereafter, the case of Bakhtaur Singh was again sent to Punjab Government/concerned higher authorities for appropriate direction, vide Resolution No.100 of Improvement Trust, Bathinda but the State Government had rejected the said recommendation and resolution No.100 of Trust. The competent authority of Punjab State, Local Bodies Department, Chandigarh has rejected the claim of occupant and as such, the Trust is planning to file fresh eviction application against Bakhtaur Singh. Since, the Trust is not in actual possession of plot, allotted to the complainant and as such, the possession of the same cannot be delivered by the Trust to the complainant. The opposite parties have further submitted that in such circumstances, if the complainant wants the money, deposited by him can be refunded as per rules, regulations and law applicable in this behalf. 8. Originally, the plot bearing No.177 allotted to the complainant, measuring 108 Square Yards and thereafter, another plot was issued to the complainant bearing No.111, measuring 108 Square Yards in the category of Defence in 49.50 Acre Development Scheme, vide Improvement Trust Bathinda but till date, the possession of the said plot has not been handed over to the complainant despite his depositing the payment. As above mentioned plot is in illegal possession of one Bakhtaur Singh. The opposite party No.1 had the knowledge that the plot allotted to the complainant is in illegal possession of one Bakhtaur Singh despite that they have allotted the said plot to the complainant but till date, the opposite parties have not given the possession of the said plot bearing No.111 to the complainant. 9. The opposite parties have argued that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. Since the allotment of plot, the complainant has been approaching the opposite parties time and again orally as well as through written representations, the plot has not been allotted to him. Moreover, this is the continuous cause of action as the possession of the plot has not been delivered till date. As per Section 97 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, no case is maintainable against the Trust or any Trustee or officer in respect of anything done lawfully and in good faith. This allegation of the opposite parties is not tenable as they have themselves admitted that the plot so issued to the complainant, was in the illegal possession of one Bakhtaur Singh and according to Section 101 of Act, no act done of proceedings taken by Trust under the Act shall be questioned in Court of law. Again this objection is not tenable because the illegality is on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have taken the objections that the said Bakhtaur Singh is not impleaded as party to the present complaint by the complainant. The complainant is not consumer to Bakhtaur Singh and moreover, no such deficiency in service is alleged against Bakhtaur Singh. The complainant had entered into the contract with the opposite parties not with Bakhtaur Singh. Moreover, in the legal suits, the complainant was/is not party to those proceedings. Hence, the objection is not tenable. 10. The Trust is not in the actual possession of the plot allotted to the complainant as such, they are unable to deliver the possession of the same plot to the complainant. All these facts were in the knowledge of the opposite parties but they have intentionally concealed this fact from the complainant and have intentionally issued the said plot to the complainant which was not in actual in their possession, whereas it is the duty of the opposite parties to give the possession of the plot to the complainant or adjust him in any other plot. 11. In para No.21, the complainant prayed that a compensation of Rs.10,11,000/- alongwith 12% interest on claim amount from the year 2001 till its realization may be awarded and has given the details as under:- (a) Rs.8 Lacs as compensation for enhanced cost of constructing the house. (b) Rs.2 Lacs as compensation for mental agony and pain as he remained deprived of the comfort and status of owning a house from the last 11 years and continuous in the same position till now. 12. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as it was the duty of the opposite parties to give the possession of the plot to the complainant. The complainant has not placed on file evidence with regard to enhanced cost of construction of the house. He has neither prayed for the refund of the amount of the plot nor for the possession of the plot nor for alternative plot. As such, no direction can be given with regard to the plot. The complainant has not got the possession of the plot till date. With regard to the prayer of the complainant, mentioned in para no.21(a) of the complaint, the complainant is at liberty to approach this Forum as and when he will get the possession of the plot. The complainant has been deprived of the comfort and status of owing a house for the last 11 years. He is a defence person, had dreamt of having his own house after retirement but despite deposit of amount, he has not got the possession of his plot. Thus, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac) as compensation for his mental agony and harassment with Rs.5,000/- as cost. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 29-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
