DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 440

 Instituted on:   27.04.2022 

                                                                          Decided on:    05.03.2024

Dhiraj Prabha wife of Late Shri Hukam Chand resident of H.No.50, Shaheed Sewa Singh Thikri Wala Nagar, Scheme, Sangrur District Sangrur.       

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

Improvement Trust, Sangrur District Sangrur through its Executive Officer, Sunam Road, Sangrur.

….Opposite party 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

For the complainant  : Shri Sunil Sharma Advocate              

For the OP                       : Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta,Advocate

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1.             The  brief facts  of the case are that the complainant is owner of plot no.50 ( corner plot) situated in Saheed Sewa Singh ThikriWala Nagar, Sangrur. The abovesaid plot was allotted to the complainant vide memo number 300 dated 27.03.2002  for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/-. There is  some vacant piece of land adjoins to  the plot of the complainant. The complainant moved an application dated 14.07.2020 to the OP regarding allotment of adjoining land of the plot of the complainant. The OP replied dated 28.10.2020  the complainant that under the order of Chairman if you are agreed to purchase the excess land adjoins to plot of the complainant @ Rs.14500/- sq.yards plus 6% cess you are required to file an affidavit to the office of OP within 15 days. As per notification of Punjab Govt. dated 21.04.2020 in Rule 7 for Sub rule (4) at sub Column (iii)  it is mentioned that  it may be allotted to the person with whose plot such excess area adjoins at a price which shall be at the market value at the time of  allotment of such excess area or the allotment price, whichever is higher. The letter dated 29.07.2020 issued by the OP to the complainant and the OP has demanded Rs.22564/- per square yards plus @6% cess. The complainant is ready to deposit the requisite amount to purchase the excess land at market rate at the time of allotment. The complainant  has lastly prayed that the Op may kindly directed to allot of land adjoins to the plot no.50 of the complainant and to  pay Rs. 400000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notice of this complaint, the OP appeared and filed reply and pleaded that the complaint is correct to the extent that plot no.50 was allotted to the complainant but the plot was not the corner plot. Hence, the complainant is only consumer of the plot no.50. The OP had sent two letters to the complainant. As per the Govt. notification dated 06.10.2016 the land adjoining to the plot can be allotted after charging the double rate of the current reserve price of the area or scheme. The second letter dated 20.10.2020 which was issued to the allottee by the  OP and intimated to the allottee to deposit  the market rate @14500/- per square yards, as per notification dated 21.04.2020  and as per the price of plot no.48 but the complainant did not turn up to the office of OP. The OP rightly demanded Rs.22564/- per square yards not square feet from the complainant vide letter dated 29.07.2020.  The adjoining area of the plot no.50 can be allotted to the complainant at the rate fixed by the price and rent fixation committee as per the rules and regulations and notification issued by the Govt. from time to time. The complainant has no preferential right, title and interest in the plot of complainant. The complainant is not  the consumer of the adjoining area of plot no.50. The remaining allegations are denied by the Ops and prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed.

3.             In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 and some other documents which are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 and closed evidence.

4.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party has produced in their evidence some documents i.e  Ex.Op/2 to Ex.Op/9  and  affidavit Ex.Op/1  and closed evidence.  

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for  parties and gone through the record file carefully  with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so  there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.

6.             Now, come to major controversy,  whether the complainant is liable for relief  as claimed by her in her prayer or  not?

7.             It is not disputed that a plot no.50 was allotted to the complainant by the OP and  the sale deed was also executed in favour of the complainant by OP. This factum also admitted by OP in its reply para no.3 (h). It transpires from the perusal of Ex.C-4, letter no.1096 dated 28.10.2020 issued by the official of OP to the complainant in which OP mentioned that “ as per the orders of Chairman if the complainant is agreed to purchase the adjoining land of the plot no.50 at the rate of Rs.14500/- per square yard alongwith 6% cess then the complainant gave her written consent by way of affidavit or undertaking within 15 days to the official of the OP as such your case could be forwarded to the Govt. for approval. If the complainant did not provide her consent  within 15 days to the office of OP  then the application will be consigned in the office of OP.

8.             It is writ large on the file letter no.721 dated 29.07.2019 issued by OP to the complainant which is Ex.C-5 in this letter it is mentioned that the additional land price of Rs.22564/- per square yard alongwith 6% cess. As per Ex.C-6 on page no.2 notification dated 21.04.2020 and Ex.OP/2 Page No.1 Rule 3  of the Punjab Town Improvement ( Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) (Amendment) Rule,2020. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“ 3.   In the said rules, in Rule 7 for sub rule (4) , the following sub-rule shall be substituted namely:-

Provided  it may  be allotted to the person with whose plot such excess area adjoins, at a price, which shall be at the market value at the time of allotment of such excess area or the allotment price, whichever is higher”

9.             This Commission has the considered view that the stand of OP is itself in contradictory in the light of Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5.  In first letter dated 28.10.2020 OP mentioned the price of adjoining land of the plot @14500/- per square yard alongwith 6% cess. On the other hand, the letter dated 29.07.2019 issued by OP to the complainant stated the price of additional land as Rs.22564/- per square yard. Moreover, OP did not cancel the letter dated 28.10.2020 which is Ex.C-4. It transpires from the pleading  of OP  para 3(e) OP pleaded that as per notification dated 21.04.2020 the allottee to deposit the market rate @14500/- per square yard and as per the price of  plot no.48. We feel that the adjoining plot did not describe by the OP neither in his pleading  nor produced by way of cogent evidence. Further, the OP mentioned in his reply in para no.3 (g) the adjoining area of the plot no.50 can be allotted to the complainant at the rate fixed by the price and rent fixation committee. The OP has miserably failed to produce any reliable and truth worthy evidence to prove this factum that they have received the sanction  from the fixation committee. However,  as per Ex.C-4 letter dated 28.10.2020 the OP crystally mentioned that the  consent has already been received from the Chairman. In letter (supra) the concerned Executive Officer of the OP also put his signature before issuance of the letter to the complainant.  We feel that from the perusal  of the entire record on file the order of the Chairman is not produced by the OP.  From this angel, OP committed unfair trade practice qua the complainant.

10.           Per contra,  the complainant dispatched her reply towards letter memo no.721 dated 29.07.2019 which is Ex.C-9. In her reply the complainant mentioned that her husband was suffered from cancer and expired on 26.10.2017. She spent everything  on the treatment of her husband. In  this crucial situation the economic condition  of the complainant is not good. The rate of Rs.1400/- per square yard was allotted to the complainant  in the year 2002. On the same rate the allotment may be allotted to the complainant.

11.           During  arguments the learned counsel for OP more pressed on the issue that the complaint is hopelessly time barred.  As per the pleadings of complaint in para no.3 (a) complainant pleaded that the plot number 50 was  allotted to the complainant on 27.03.2002 and sale deed executed on 31.03.2010 . As per para no.7 reply of legal objection mentioned that the complainant is not the consumer of the adjoining area of plot no.50. No deficiency in service committed by OP  qua the complainant. To trace out the veracity of truth,  the primary issue before this Commission is that “ whether the complaint is time barred or not ? . As per Ex.C-5 OP issued letter dated 29.07.2019 to the complainant. As per Ex.C-9, the complainant has been given the reply on 06.08.2019 to the OP and requested to the OP to allotment the adjoining land  of the plot no.50 as per the rate for the year 2002 of Rs.1400/- per square yard. As per Ex.C-4 again OP issued  second letter dated 28.10.2020 to the complainant to pay Rs.14500/- per square yard plus 6% cess of the excess land. This Commission has the considered view that the last correspondence sent by OP to  the complainant on 28.10.2020 which is Ex.C-4. Neither from the date of issuance  of first letter dated 29.07.2019 and second letter  dated 28.10.2020 issued by the OP nor issue raised by OP upto 27.04.2022 till the date of filing the present complaint regarding the limitation barred.  OP’s letter dated 29.07.2019 which is Ex.C-5 and  letter dated 28.10.2020 which is Ex.C-4, the OP not raised any issue for limitation barred qua the complainant’s right. Since 28.10.2020 when the excess area adjoining plot no.50 price not settled between the parties then the complainant redresses her grievances through the present complaint before this Commission. However, the present complaint has been filed on 27.04.2022 by the complainant before this Commission. As per the limitation to file the present complaint is concerned, since 28.10.2020 the limitation was two years. In this context, we hold that the complaint filed by the complainant is well within the limitation period. The Consumer Protection Act is a special Act, it prevails on the general Act. During arguments, the second issue raised by the learned counsel for the OP  that plot no.50 was not the corner plot. The OP also pleaded this factum in reply of OP in para no.3 ( a) that the allotted plot no.50 to the complainant is not the corner plot. To solve this issue, we examine minutely document Ex.C-3 Sale deed of the allotted plot no.50 duly executed by the OP in favour of the  complainant  on 31.03.2010.  From the perusal of sale deed page no.1 it is specifically mentioned that the plot no.50 is the corner plot. Furthermore, it transpires from the perusal of Ex.C-7 vide letter no.1295 dated 23.12.2003 issued by the Executive Officer Improvement Trust Sangrur to the complainant that to deposit the balance arrear of plot no.50 corner charges @ 10% are due of Rs.28000/-  which are liable to deposit .  It is pertinent to mention here, in the light of Ex.C-8 receipt dated 01.12.2004 vide book no. 108  issued by the OP in favour of the complainant  in which  it is crystal clear mentioned as 10% corner charges. In this juncture,  it is fully proved from the perusal of pleadings of OP and evidence produced by OP by way of affidavit which is Ex.OP/1 on oath Shri Rajesh Kumar Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Sangrur pleaded in second line of the affidavit that the plot was not the corner plot. On the other hand, as per Ex.C-1,Ex.C-3,Ex.-7, Ex.C-8 it is mentioned that the plot no.50 was allotted  to the complainant by OP is  the corner plot. Moreover, in  the light of site plan Ex.OP/9 adjoining the plot no.50 there is excess area has been clearly shown. In this situation, the stand of OP is in itself contradictory.  Further, OP pleaded in their reply in para no.3 ( e) that as per Govt. notification dated 06.10.2016  the  land adjoining to the plot can be allotted after charging the double rate of the current reserve price of the area. We examine deeply the Govt. notification dated 28.06.2016 which is Ex.C-6 and notification dated 21.04.2020 which is Ex.OP/2 in the notification there is no mention anywhere the relevant law in reply pleaded by OP in para no.3 (e). Further, OP pleaded in reply in para no.3 (e) that said to the allottee to deposit the market rate at the rate of 14500/- per square yard as per notification dated 21.04.2020 and as per the price of plot no.48. As per  Ex.OP/2 notification dated 21.04.2020 there is no mention the price of the excess area adjoining the plot shall be calculated as per double rate of the current reserve price. In this situation, the plea of OP is not proved by way of reliable, trust worthy and cogent evidence. This Commission has no hesitation to hold the interpretation in the light of Ex.C-6 page 2  Notification dated 21.04.2020 issued by the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Local Govt. rule 7,  sub-rule (4) the excess area  allotted to the person adjoins the plot, at the price, which shall be at the market value at the time of allotment of such excess area or the allotment price, whichever is higher. From the perusal of an utmost important document Ex.C-2 page no.3 the auction/ rate per square yard mentioned as Rs.1400/-. We feel that the allotment price of the plot was allotted to the complainant @ Rs.1400/-. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, this is a fit case to redress the grievance of the complainant. In the present case, the law of pre-emption is fully applicable which is admitted by OP to issuance of two letters qua the complainant. The OP is also admitted this factum in its reply that OP is ready and willing to provide the excess adjoining land to the complainant.

12.           This Commission has the considered opinion that the market value of the plot at the time of allotment is equal to allotment price in the light of Ex.C-2 page no.3. However, except  the complainant neither any other person is ready and willing to pay excess amount nor OP produced on record any material evidence to prove this factum. “A man can lie, but document can’t”.

It is incumbent upon the OP to comply with strictly notification dated 21.04.2020 which is Ex.C-6 page no.2. We feel that the law of land is supreme no one  is above the law.   

13.           Resultantly,  keeping  in view of the  facts and  circumstances  of the  complaint  in hand  and with  careful  analysis  of the evidence available on record, the present complaint  is partly allowed and we direct the OP to allot the land adjoins to the plot no.50 of the complainant @ Rs.1400/- per square yard as per the market value at the time of allotment.  The OP is further directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.15000/- as compensation alongwith  litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by OP  within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order. 

14.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

15.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Announced.                                              

                                March 5, 2024

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President

BBS/-