DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 367/2015
Date of Institution : 17.08.2015
Date of Decision : 21.06.2016
Harpal Singh son of Bikkar Singh @ Teja Singh son of Ralla Singh through his General Power of Attorney holder Ranjit Singh son of Harchand Singh resident of House No. 21, Saheed Jita Singh Nagar, Barnala for executing the sale deed of plot No. 12 situated in the 63 Acre Scheme Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
The Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Barnala.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajan Chaudhary counsel for the complainant
Sh. Sat Parkash counsel for the opposite party
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Harpal Singh son of Bikkar Singh alias Teja Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Barnala (in short the opposite party).
2. The facts leading to the present case are that the complainant purchased a plot No. 12 measuring 304 Square Yards situated in the area of Shaheed Jita Singh Nagar, 63 Acre Scheme, Barnala and the said plot was transferred in his name. It is further averred that the complainant applied for the sanction of map for raising construction on the said plot on 27.7.1994 alongwith documents for transfer of allotment letter and site plan. The said site plan was sanctioned by the opposite party vide letter No. ITB/94/75 dated 19.9.1994. It is further pleaded that the complainant deposited the extra construction fee amounting to Rs. 15,325/- vide receipt No. 4550 dated 19.8.1994. It is further pleaded that the opposite party vide letter No. 290 dated 21.2.2013 acknowledged that the property has been constructed at the spot but refused to transfer the property in the name of the complainant. The complainant vide application dated 23.5.2013 informed the office that requisite site plan was passed and complainant completed the construction in the year 1996-97. The complainant got released the water and sewerage connection on 20.7.1998. The bill and receipts were sent to the office of the opposite party alongwith the said application and his application was sent through post vide postal receipt No. ARP223714297 dated 23.5.2013. It is also averred that the complainant submitted the completion report of the house duly prepared by Bansal Associates at the spot on 9.9.2013 vide postal receipt dated 23.10.2013.
3. The complainant has alleged that he is running from pillar to post for registration of the sale deed of the said plot but the opposite party is harassing him under one pretext or the other by not executing the said sale deed. It is further alleged that Punjab Government vide notification No. GSR 26/CA SA2/1899/S.75/Admn (8)/2015 dated 8.4.2015 duly published in Government Gazette dated 12.4.2015 authorized to charge the stamp duty on the old rates existing at the time of first allotment amount of the plot/house and not as per the existing rates. It is further averred that now State of Punjab has again extended the date of this concession of registration of sale deed on the actual value of price of alloted plot till 30.8.2015. It is further averred that opposite party failed to execute the sale deed within the statutory period. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay the extra registration charges. Even, notice was sent dated 15.7.2015 to the opposite party but no reply has been received by the complainant. Thus, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite party be directed to execute the sale deed of the said property in favour of the complainant as per the provisions of Punjab Government instructions and further be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment and also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
4. Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite party who has filed a written version taking legal objections that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the plot in question was originally alloted to one Birbal Dass son of Sadhu Ram vide agreement dated 11.9.1980 and the complainant has purchased the same from Birbal Dass and the complainant has not complied the terms and conditions of the allotment agreement as well as notification No. GSR-36/PA 4/22/S 73/Amd/3/2005 and in this way building in question is incomplete. Secondly, the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint and as such opposite party is entitled for the award of special costs of Rs. 50,000/-.
5. On merits, it is averred that it is a fact that plot in question was transferred in the name of Harpal Singh complainant. It is further averred that if the electric connection is not got released in the building till then it will be deemed to be un-complete. It is further averred that vide application dated 22.7.2014 addressed to Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Barnala opposite party, it is admitted by the complainant that he is residing abroad and due to this reason, electric connection could not be got released in the building in question. Ranjit singh holder of power of attorney of the complainant also given in writing dated 3.6.2015 admitted that electric connection is still not applied qua the plot in question. It is further pleaded that the opposite party vide letter No. 819 dated 3.8.2015 informed the power of attorney Ranjit Singh to provide the complete record of the completion of building in question alongwith the proof of release of electricity connection within 7 days but till date said information has not been received by the opposite party and as such building is incomplete and until completion report is not received till then sale deed in question cannot be got executed as per instructions of Punjab Government. It is further pleaded that since the complainant himself is a defaulting party so there is no question of harassment. They have also denied of receiving any legal notice from the complainant. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ranjit Singh power of attorney of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of power of attorney Ex.C-2, copy of transfer application of plot Ex.C-3, copy of application dated 27.7.1994 Ex.C-4, copy of sanctioned letter Ex.C-4/X, copy of extra construction fee receipt Ex.C-5, copy of application dated 21.2.2013 Ex.C-6, copy of application dated 23.5.2013 Ex.C-7, copy of application dated 17.4.2013 Ex.C-8, copy of receipt dated 22.6.2012 Ex.C-9, copy of receipt dated 21.4.2012 Ex.C-10, copy of receipt dated 12.8.1998 Ex.C-11, copy of receipt dated 20.7.1998 Ex.C-12, copy of application dated 23.10.2013 Ex.C-13, copy of completion report dated 9.9.2013 Ex.C-14, copy of map Ex.C-15, copy of notification dated 8.4.2015 Ex.C-16 and Ex.C-17, copy of notice Ex.C-18, copy of receipt Ex.C-19, copy of letter dated 4.1.2015 Ex.C-20, copy of list of vacant plots Ex.C-21 and closed his evidence.
7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party has tendered copy of notification dated 13.12.2015 Ex.OP-1, copy of letter dated 22.7.2014 Ex.OP-2, copy of letter dated 11.9.1992 Ex.OP-3, copy of letter dated 17.4.2013 Ex.OP-4, copy of letter dated 15.7.2015 Ex.OP-5, copy of letter dated 3.6.2015 Ex.OP-6, copy of letter dated 30.7.2015 Ex.OP-7, affidavit of Gora Lal Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
9. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a plot in question and the same was transferred in his name by the opposite party vide letter Ex.C-3. Thereafter, the site plan was sanctioned by the opposite party vide letter Ex.C-4. The complainant also deposited the extra construction fee amounting to Rs. 15,325/- vide receipt Ex.C-5. Vide receipt Ex. C-11 and Ex.C-12, the complainant has deposited the necessary fee for releasing the water and sewerage connection. Ex.C-10 is the bill issued by Water Supply and Sewerage Board Barnala showing the Account No. 12602 for the year 22.6.2011 to 21.4.2012. Thereafter the complainant submitted a completion report dated 9.9.2013 prepared by Bansal Associates, which is Ex.C-14 and the same is shown to be sent to the opposite party through post vide postal receipt dated 23.10.2013 Ex.C-13. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice Ex.C-18 dated 15.7.2015 requesting the opposite party for executing the sale deed of the plot in question.
10. Apart from the above, the complainant has also placed on record list Ex.C-21 issued by the opposite party showing the list of vacant plots and this list does not contain the plot of the complainant meaning by that the complainant has completed the construction on the plot in question. On the basis of the above said documents the Counsel for the complainant contended that all the formalities have been completed by the complainant, but the opposite party failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and therefore the opposite party may be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.
11. On the other hand, the first question raised by the opposite party that the terms and conditions of the allotment agreement as well as notification Ex.O.P-1 has been violated by the complainant. It was contended that there is no electric connection in the building till today and thus the building will be deemed to be uncomplete. It is further submitted that vide application dated 22.7.2014 Ex.O.P-2, the complainant admitted that since he is residing abroad so due to that reason the electric connection could not be got released in the building in question. Even vide letter Ex.O.P-6 addressed to the Chairman of the opposite party and receipt dated 3.6.2015 show that the electric connection was not got released by the complainant in the building in question. It was contended that electric connection in the building in question was not got & vide notification dated 13.12.2015 issued by the Government of Punjab Ex.O.P-1 the building in question is not complete and therefore the opposite party has rightly refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.
12. It is relevant to refer rule 7 of notification Ex.O.P-1 dated 13.12.2015, which reads as:-
“(7) You shall have to complete the building on the plot allotted to you within a period of three years from the date of taking possession of the plot or within a period of two years from the date of providing the basic civic amenities of water supply and approach path in the area, where the plot is situated, after taking prior approval of the Trust:
Provided that if the construction is not raised within the aforesaid stipulated period, the State Government may extend the period of construction for a period of two years, if the allottee deposits the prescribed non-construction fee with the Trust.
(7-A) In case the construction is not raised even within the enhanced period of two years, the Trust would be comeptent to resume the plot and the amount deposited in consideration of the allotment of the plot, shall stand forfeited.
(7-B) Notwithstanding anything contained in condition No. 7, the State Government may waive the non-construction fee either in part or in full if the allottee;-
is a defence personnel and is posted at a far flung area and is not in position to complete the construction; or
has died and his or her legal heirs are not in a position to raise the construction; or
is suffering from a chronic disease; or
is facing any genuine extreme hardship-.
Explanation:- (1) For the purposed of these rules;-
(a) in case of residential building, the construction of one habitable room, kitchen, bath room and water- closet alongwith taking of connection of water supply and electricity shall be deemed to be a complete building; and
(b) in case of commercial or industrial or institutional buildings, the raising of twenty five per cent construction of the maximum permissible coverage area shall be deemed to be a complete building”.
13. The main emphasis of the opposite party is that the complainant has not got the electric connection and due to that building is still incomplete. Even it was argued that vide letter dated 3.8.2015 Ex.O.P-7, the opposite party issued a letter to the complainant for submitting proof of the electric connection in the building in question, so that the further proceedings may be taken. Admittedly, there is no electric connection in the plot in dispute although building construction is completed as per site plan. Thus, it is violation of the rules as referred to above.
14. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant that firstly he should get the electric connection in the building in question, which is the necessary condition for the completion of the building and thereafter he can approach to the opposite party requesting for executing the sale deed as per rules. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
21st Day of June, 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member
