Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant K.S. Pamdhi 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.531 in Scheme No.1, Model Town, Kapurthala from the opposite party Trust at the rate of Rs.1300/- per marla vide memo of allotment of the said plot for an amount of Rs.64,194/- for an area of 500 sq. yards i.e. 24.69 marlas It is further averred that as per the terms of the memo of allotment, 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. It is further averred that plot No.531 of 500 sq. yards i.e. 24.69 marlas was found in excess by 2.65 marlas allotted to complainant. It is further stated that both parties are bound by the terms settled by him with the Improvement Trust. 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.537. 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 submitted that Improvement Trust, Kapurthala filed case against complainant under Public Premises and Land Act, 1973 in the Court of SDO (C) dated 1/3/1993 wherein Chairman of Improvement Trust ad,otted that excess area will be allotted to the complainant but the undertaking has not been honoured uptill now. 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 53.76 sq. yards (2.65 manlas) in the sum of Rs. 24,970/-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 C13. <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.C3 issued by the Improvement Trust Kapurthala for charging the exorbitant rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per marla for the excess area of 4.01 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.C3 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.531 to complainant vide Ex.C2 dated 18/8/1986 is not disputed. The terms and conditions are contained in Ex.C2 provide that as per clause 9 interalia 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 allotment and also instructions issued by the Government from time to time vide Ex.C3 dated 11/12/1985. He paid enhanced installments consequent upon the enhancement of land acquisition compensation of the area under the Scheme vide Ex.C14 dated 26/12/1986. 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.C5 dated 20/7/1993 and ex.C6 dated 13/12/1994. The Chairman Improvement Trust recommended to the Govt. for allotment of excess area to the other 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.C8 which was sanctioned by the Govt. vide letter dated 20/9/1999 Ex.C9 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.C6 and Ex.C7. 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 clarifications 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. Since in th present case, Improvement Trust, Kapurthala had already given undertaking vide Ex.C5 dated 29/10/1996 in the litigation under Public Premises Act that Trust was willing to adjust applicant and allot the area vekow 50 sq.yards at the price as per instructions of the Govt.. The Govt. issued instructions vide letter dated 20/2/1998 Ex.R3 that Trust is authorised to allot the excess area of the allotted plot upto 50 sq.yards on the prevalent market rate and which would be more realistic/equivalent to collector rate. As already observed Improvement Trust, Kapurthala had already recommended charging of the rates of the excess area on the average basis of collector rate for the preceding three years vide Ex.C8 dated 28/3/1995. Therefore, from the perusal of terms and conditions of the allotment letter Ex.C2 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.C8; 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 2.65 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 />