Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Harbhajan Singh against opposite parties i.e. Town Improvement Trust Kapurthala through its Executive officer and also through its Chairman seeking direction against them for allotment of excess area in terms of the original allotment at the then prevalent price of the plot and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint lie in a narrow compass.. Complainant purchased one plot No.535 in Scheme No.1, Model Town, Kapurthala from the opposite party Trust at the rate of Rs.1300/- per marla vide agreement of sale dated 10/9/1981 between complainant and Improvement Trust opposite party for the said plot for an amount of Rs.32,098.40P for an area 1 Kanal 4 marla 126 sq.feet. It is further averred that as per the terms of the certificate dated 5.3.1986, in case the area is found excess than allotted one, then the price of the excess area shall be charged at the rate already settled at the time of the allotment besides other terms. The Improvement Trust Kapurthala issued a certificate dated 5/3/1986 to the allottee to that effect that the entire sale consideration stands paid, but in case there is any enhancement in the compensation paid to the owners of the acquired land, then the allottee will be liable to pay the same to the Improvement Trust and in case the area of the plot allotted is in excess at the spot, then the allottee will have to pay the amount of the excess area at the same price. and as such both the parties are bound by the terms of agreement of sale and certificate. It is further averred that plot No.535 of 1 Kanal 4 marlas 126 sq.feet was found in excess by 3.27 marlas allotted to complainant Complainant alongwith his neighbourers i.e. owners of plot No.532 to 537, 540 and plot NO. 376 to 391 moved an application to the Improvement Trust, Kapurthala dated 20/7/1993 to allot the excess area under each plot to its owners i.e. allottees of the Improvement Trust on the same price but the officials of the opposite party Trust procrastinated the same on one pretext or the other despite the fact that complainant constructed his house over plot No.535. On 12/12/1994, Improvement Trust decided that allottees who have in possession excess area than original allotment, shall be allotted excess area at a price by working out average of the collector rates for the last three years. Later on passed the resolution No.1440 dated dated 31/1/1995 in this respect and forwarded the same to the Government for sanction. It is further stated that excess area in possession of owners of plot No.374 to 391 in Development scheme No.1 Kapurthala . was allotted to them at three times of the rates at which original allotment was. made vide endt. no. 8/32/ 95, 3142/ 12587 dated 19. 9. 1999. It,is surprising to note that the name of the complainant was not included in this allotment, It is further stated that the Improvement kapurthala vide kpt-86/448-0 dated<br /> 27 .04.89 has allotted 23 sq. yards excess area to Sh .Gurmeet<br /> singh son of Sh. Avtar Singh,vill Bhawani pur,plot holder<br /> number 152 .in the sum of rs. 2991. The Trust vide latter dated<br /> 16. 3. 2000 has allotted excess area measuring 64 sq. yards to<br /> Sh. Santokh Singh son of bachan Singh plot no. 380,kapurthala in the sum of Rs. 24,970. It is further stated that kamlesh kumar another displaced person like the complainant was alloted the excess area @ Rs 2600 per marla i. e. double the reserve price. Kamlesh Kumar had challenged the demand in the civil Court. The civil Court had held that Kamlesh Kumar was entitled to the excess area at the reserve price i.e. Rs, 1300 per marla. Appeal filed by the Trust was also dismissed. Then Trust went to the high Court where the parties compromised. The Trust had charged Rs 2600 per marla form Kamlesh Kumar and that too in the year 2006. It is further averred that on 9. 10. 07 the complainant has received letter no. KIT 07/457 from Improvement Trust kapurthala that the Government has agreed to allot the excess area measuring 66.25 sq. yards (3.27 manlas) in the sum of Rs. 4,41,450/-i.e. Rs, 1.35,000/- per marla. The complainant has therefore, assailed the above demand raised by the opposite party Trust being illegal, unjust and against equity which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party Trust.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that present complaint is not maintainable and that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. Opposite party Trust has defended legality and validity of impunged letter dated 9/10/2007on the basis of instructions issued by the Government of Punjab for charging the rate at one and half time of collector rate of Rs. 90,000/- per marla and excess area has been allotted to the complainant as per guidelines and instructions issued by the government.. The Improvement Trust is controlled by the Government is bound by the terms and conditions issued by the Government from time to time. As such there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party nor any discrimination meted out to complainant.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has tendered in evidence affiudavit and documents Ex.C1 to C20. <br /> 5. On the other hand opposite party Trust tendered in evidence documents Ex.R1 to R11.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for complainant has vehemently urged before us that im;punged letter dated 9/10/2007 Ex.C2 issued by the Improvement Trust Kapurthala for charging the exorbitant rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per marla for the excess area of 3.27 marla is illegal, null and void, arbitrary and discriminatory which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. On the other hand it has been counter argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party nor there was any unfair trade practice in charging prevalent rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per marla of the excess area at the time of allotment vide letter dated 9/10/2007 Ex.C2 in terms of the Government guidelines and instructions vide letter Ex.R8 dated 20/10/2005.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find a good deal of merit in the contentions of counsel for the complainant. These broad facts about allotment of the plot No.535 to complainant vide Ex.C18 dated 10/9/1981 in favour of complainant is not disputed. The terms and conditions contained in allotment certificate Ex.C20 that allottee/transfree of the plot shall be bound to pay proportionate excess price in the event of enhancement of land acquisition compensation and also to pay excess price of the excess area of the plot after measurement on the spot. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the ageement of sale and certificate and also instructions issued by the Government from time to time vide Ex.C8 dated 20/9/1999. This fact is admitted by the opposite party Trust's Executive Officer vide affidavit Ex.R1 that complainant and other owners of the plots No.531,532,534,535, 536,537 and No.540 moved applications for transfer of the excess area of their respective plots on payment of the price of excess area vide Ex.C4 dated 20/7/1993 and ex.C5 dated 13/12/1994. The Chairman Improvement Trust recommended to the Govt. for allotment of excess area to the allottees on charging three times of the collector rate of the land vide resolution No.1440 dated 31/1/1995 and same was also endorsed by the Committee vide Ex.C7. Govt. vide letter dated 20/9/1999 Ex.C8 intimated that additional land may be allotted to the allottees of plot No.374 to 391 in Development Scheme No.1 I.T. Kapurthala at three times of the rates at which original allotment was made. Undoubtedly, earlier Improvement Trust Kapurthala has charged price for the excess area from other plot owners Gurmit Singh, Santokh Singh and Sohan Singh at the rates specified therein vide Ex. Ex.C9, C10, and C11. However, different parameters as per excess area of the land were issued by the Government vide respective letters Ex.R2 dated 21/5/1997, Ex.R3 dated 20/2/1998, Ex.R4 dated 17/8/1998 and Ex.R5 dated 28-31/5/2001 and Ex.R6 dated 24/12/2002 and Ex.R7 dated 4/12/2003 and finally vide letter Ex.R8 dated 20/10/2005 and its clarification vide Ex.R10 dated 1/12/2005 for determination of price of the excess area and authority of the Chairman of the Improvement Trust for allotment of such land to the extent of 50 sq. yards/100 sq.yards. The final clarification made in the letter indicates that prevailing market price of the excess area at the time of allotment should be charged from the plot holders. We cannot be impervious to the fact that complainant and others also moved reprsentations dated 15/3/1994 to Govt. and also to Improvement Trust dated 30/2/2001 for allotment of excess area on the prescribed rate by the Govt. and further vide applications Ex.c15 dated 21/5/2001, Ex.C16 dated 15/10/2001, and Ex.C17 dated 16/10/2001 for allotment of excess area. Therefore, from the perusal of terms and conditions of the agreement of sale Ex.C3 and certificate Ex.C20 and also the acceptance by the owners/allottees, criteria of determination of the price of excess area on average basis of collector rate of land of preceding three years, opposite party Trust cannot wriggle out of its own then instructions by way of procrastination till final issuance of the letter dated 20/10/2005 Ex.R8 that in future additional land would be allotted at one and half times of the market price prevailing at the time of allotment which otherwise does not embrace claim of the complainant for excess area already decided by the Improvement Trust vide Ex.C6 and also accepted by the Govt. vide letter Ex.c9; albeit in respect of plots of other plot holders.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant is entitled to excess area of the land measuring 3.27 marlas on average basis of collector rate of the land of preceding three years in terms of resolution dated 28.3.1995 with further direction to the opposite party to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.3000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part besides Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 22.5.2008 Member President.<br />