Punjab

Sangrur

CC/346/2016

Ujjagar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.  346

                                                Instituted on:    01.04.2016

                                                Decided on:       26.10.2016

 

Ujjagar Singh son of Rattan Singh, resident of village Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Improvement Trust, Malerkotla through its Executive Officer/ Chairman.

                                                        …Opposite party

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For Opposite party   :       Shri N.S.Sahni, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ujjagar Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the Op allotted a plot number 68 measuring 0-5 biswas to Smt. Gurpreet Kaur vide allotment letter dated 20.11.1989 and thereafter on her request the plot was transferred to Shri Darshan Singh vide memo dated 21.3.1995 and thereafter sale deed number 3317 dated 9.1.1996 was executed. Thereafter the said plot was sold by Darshan Singh to Smt. Laveena Bansal wife of Ajay Bansal vide sale deed dated 16.1.1996. Thereafter Smt. Laveena Bansal sold the plot vide sale deed dated 5.10.2002 to Shri Tarlochan Singh.  Further case of the complainant is that the Op through pamphlets made an offer for sale of the residential plots bearing number 23, 141 and 142 along with the shops in Rose Avenue and the open auction was to be held on 30.5.2012 and the reserve rate of the plot number 141 was Rs.3900/- per square yards and the area of the plot was 94.18 sq. yards. It is further stated that the complainant deposited 10% i.e. Rs.65,500/- vide receipt dated 30.5.2012 with the Op and participated in the open auction held on 30.5.2012. The complainant was the highest bidder to purchase the plot number 141 at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per sq. yards.  On 31.5.2012 the complainant deposited 25% of the total amount i.e. Rs.4,47,335/- plus 4% cess i.e. Rs.71,577/- total Rs.5,18,932/-. Further case of the complainant is that plot number 141 is situated on eastern side of the plot number 68. It is further averred that while inspected the plot number 141, the complainant found that one Tarlochan Singh has possessed the plot number 141 measuring 94.18 sq. yards with the construction raised at the plinth level and further found that there is civil suit pending with the OP against plot number 141. The grievance of the complainant is that though he approached the OP for handing over the possession of the plot in question, but the Op failed to do so. Further it is stated that the Op field a complaint number 121 of 22.7.2003 against Tarlochan Singh under section 195/195A of the Punjab Municipal Act, but the same as dismissed vide judgment dated 4.4.2006.  

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the complainant earlier filed a complaint number 20 dated 4.1.2013 decided on 18.2.2013, but despite making the statement the Op failed to hand over the demarcation of the plot and to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant. It is further stated that though the OP passed a resolution number 135 on 23.7.2015 that the amount deposited by the complainant be refunded to him without interest and sent the same to the higher authorities for approval, but all in vain.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to deliver the possession of plot number 141 measuring 94.18 sq. yards from Tarlochan Singh to the complainant or to refund to the complainant the amount so deposited i.e. Rs.5,18,932/- along with interest and further claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections on the grounds of cause of action, maintainability and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands are taken up. On merits, it is stated that plot number 68 was allotted to Gurpeet Kaur and in the last was sold to Tarlochan Singh. It is stated that there is no dispute regarding plot number 141 and the suit filed by Tarlochan Singh has already been dismissed by the civil Court. It is stated further that there was o dispute in respect of plot number 141 with Tarlochan Singh and the complainant has filed this complaint by mentioning wrong facts. It has been denied that the Op failed to hand over the possession of the plot number 141 rather the complainant was given offer a number of times to get the possession, but the complainant himself failed to take the possession of the plot in question.  However, it is admitted that letter number 1083 dated 15.10.2012 was issued to the complainant and was asked to deposit the requisite amount and to get the site plan sanctioned.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  Lastly, the Op has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of receipt, Ex.C-3 copy of letter, Ex.C-4 copy of letter, Ex.C-5 copy of schedule of payment, Ex.C-6 copy of pamphlet, Ex.C-7 copy of order dated 4.4.2006, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-26 copies of letters and copies of orders and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 copies of orders, Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-11 copies of letters and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the plot number 141 having an area of 94.18 sq. yards in an open auction held on 30.5.2012 and deposited  Rs.5,18,932/- in toto with the OP vide receipts number 30.5.2012 and 31.5.2012. The allegation of the complainant is that the OP auctioned the plot number 141 wrongly as the same was not in possession of the OP at the time of auction rather the same was in possession of one Tarlochan Singh, who has also raised construction on the plot in question and dispute was pending between Tarlochan Singh and the OP in the Civil Court, Malerkotla, regarding the said plot, which was later on decided.  It is worth mentioning here that the Op even failed to recover the possession of plot number 141 measuring 94.18 sq. yards from the said Tarlochan Singh and to deliver the same to the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that it is an admitted fact that the OP failed to deliver the actual possession of the plot to the complainant, which was auctioned through an open auction held on 30.5.2012. To support the above said allegation the complainant has also produced Ex.C-1 his own sworn affidavit. Ex.C-6 is copy of pamphlet which also shows about the auction of residential plot number 141 having area of 94.18 sq. yards. Ex.C-2 is a receipt dated 31.5.2012 showing deposit of Rs.4,53,432/-with the OP.  Ex.C-7 is the copy of the order dated 4.4.2006  wherein the complaint filed against Tarlochan Singh by the Op was dismissed by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla. Further Ex.C-4 is the copy of memo number 1083 dated 15.10.2012 showing allotment of plot number 141 to the complainant which he purchased in an open auction held on 30.5.2012. In these circumstances, it is sufficiently proved on record that the plot in question bearing number 141 sold to the complainant Ujjagar Singh is in dispute and the OP was not entitled to auction the same as the plot in question was not actually in possession of the OP.  In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OP is deficient in rendering service by selling out the plot number 141 in an open auction to the complainant as the plot in question was not in actual possession of the OP.   We may also mention that the OP also passed resolution number 135, whereby it was resolved that the amount so deposited by the complainant against the allotment of plot number 141 be refunded to the complainant without any interest to avoid any litigation, but even then the Op failed to do so.  As such, we find that it is a fit case, where the OP can be directed to refund to the complainant the amount so deposited by the complainant with the OP as the OP has miserably failed to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the complainant. 

 

7.             Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,18,932/- within a period of sixty days, failing which the OP shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 1.4.2016 till realisation.  OP is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 26, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

 

                                                            (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member