BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint No.248 of 2018

                                                               New CC No.294 of 2022

                                                               (Remanded Back) 18.07.2022

                                                                   Date of Inst. 22.08.2022

                                                                   Date of Decision: 06.06.2024

Mohan Singh son of Sh. Kabal Singh, resident of Mohalla Tibba Sahib, Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant

Versus

Jalandhar Development Authority, SCO No.41, PUDA Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar through its Estate Officer.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Smt. Harveen Bhardwaj          (President)

 Smt. Jyotsna                           (Member)                                  Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:        Sh. S. K. Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.                        Sh. A. S. Saini, Adv. Counsel for the OP.

Order

Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                    The instant complaint has been remanded back by the Hon’ble State Commission, vide order dated 18.07.2022, whereby the order of this Commission dated 16.12.2021 had been set-aside and further, a direction was given to this Commission to release the amount, which was deposited by the appellant/OP before Hon’ble State Commission and further a direction was given to pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased residential plots No.2 and 3, measuring 532 Sq. Yards situated at Tiwana Enclave, Village Kot Kalan, Jalandhar. That the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development (Housing Branch) issued notification No.12/04/16-5Hg2/891764/1 dated 15.12.2016 to bring un-authorized colonies and plots under the umbrella of planned framework and to provide basic necessities to residents of said colonies. As per said notification, Government of Punjab, fixed the charges for regularization of plots situated in un-authorized colonies. That as per clause 7 of notification, it was compulsory for all developers of un-authorized colonies/owners of plots/buildings in such colonies to file an application with the competent authority in the prescribed format for compounding of colony/plots/buildings within one month from the date of notification of the aforementioned policy. That in compliance of aforesaid notification, complainant moved application with the prescribed authorities and deposited 15% of the compounding fees vide DD No.025655 dated 13.01.2017 for Rs.25,150/- as required by them and receipt bearing Sr. No.268-J dated 14.01.2017 was issued in favour of complainant. That still further, the complainant deposited the remaining amount i.e. 85% of the compounding fees within one year as required under the provisions of said notification, to the competent authorities and accordingly, sum of Rs.1,42,517/- was deposited vide DD No.777375 dated 10.08.2017 drawn at Punjab National Bank, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur. That as per clause 8 of the said notification, it is stated that in case of non-submission of application by plot holders as per provisions of notification, plot of the concerned land owner shall remain unauthorized and no connection of water supply and other services like sewerage, drainage, electricity shall be provided to such plot holder and no building plan shall be approved by Building Plan Sanctioning Authority and Sub Registrar under the provisions of Registration Act, shall not register sale deed of the said plot. The complainant submitted the applications and deposited the requisite fees with the authorities which were accordingly accepted by them but to the utter surprise of complainant, the OP issued letter dated 21.12.2017 wherein it was stated that application submitted by the complainant for regularization of plots cannot be considered for the time being and it was further stated that complainants can move application to the concerned authorities for regularizations of plots under the prospective policy of Government qua the same. It is pertinent to mention here that sum of Rs.25,150/- which represented 15% of the regularization fees was returned vide DD No.000184 dated 01.12.2017 drawn at HDFC Bank. However, said Demand Draft has not been encashed by the complainant and said instrument is now a stale instrument. The said action of the OP certainly amounts to deficiency in services and amounts to unfair trade practice as on receipt of application and encashment of 100% regularization fees, OP cannot turn around and state that the application for regularization cannot be considered for the time being. Still further, said 85% amount was never returned by the OP to the complainants. That due to illegal act of OP, complainant has suffered huge mental agony and tension and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to regularize the plots of the complainants as per provisions of notification dated 15.12.2016 and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, tension and legal expenses incurred by the complainant.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special cost. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. That the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and thus this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service in part of the OP. That the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act, conduct and admissions. That the complaint is bad for the non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. It is further submitted that in this case Additional Chief Administrator PUDA, Competent Authority to issue the NOC for the regularization of the pot in question and the complainant has deposited the amount with the Competent Authority. The Estate Officer PUDA Jalandhar is wrongly impleaded as a party. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased residential plots No.2 and 3, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

5.                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.O1 alongwith document Ex.O-2 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.                It is not disputed that the complainant moved an application for regularization of the illegal and unauthorized colony alongwith required fee. It is also not disputed that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,150/- vide receipt Ex.C-1 having area 532 sq. yards and given the draft of Rs.1,42,517/- as 85% of the compounding fee which was to be deposited within one year for the property situated at Village Kotkalan J-268. The District Commission passed the order on 16.12.2021 directing the OPs to regularize the plots of the complainant as per the provisions of notification dated 15.12.2016. When the appeal was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission and documents were also filed before the Hon’ble State Commission, in which the complainant moved an application on 25.02.2020 for refund of complete deposited amount and the amount was refunded by the OPs to the complainant by way of cheque and same was got encashed. The Hon’ble State Commission remanded the complaint to pass an appropriate order after considering the documents to be produced by both the parties. Accordingly, the opportunity was granted to both the parties to produce the documents alongwith application. Today, the OP moved an application alongwith statement of account and submitted that the amount has already been refunded to the complainant as per his application. As per statement of account, cheque for the amount of Rs.1,67,667/- has been issued and encashed in favour of Mohan Singh for the plot J-268. So, in the complaint, the complainant has sought the relief by directing the OPs to regularize the plot of the complainant, but since the amount deposited by the complainant for regularization has been refunded to the complainant and the same has been encashed also, therefore, the present complaint has become infructuous as no such directions can be issued and accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

06.06.2024         Member                          Member             President