Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Case of the respondent/complainant is that 5 plots were allotted to him in Shyam Nagar Scheme with the condition that within 5 years of allotment letter, construction will have to be made failing which allotment was liable to be cancelled.  Respondent admittedly deposited the development charges, lease money and other charges demanded by the petitioner but despite several letters, possession was not handed over to the respondent.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint.  Possession was not handed over to the respondent as there were trespassers sitting on the land, which had been allotted to the respondent.

          District Forum directed the petitioner to hand over physical possession of the land in question and in case it was not possible to hand over physical possession, alternative plot of same measurement in the same locality was to be provided to the respondent.  Petitioner was further directed to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as litigation expenses.  Above amount was to be recovered from the salary of the erring officials.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the State Commission.  Before the State Commission, petitioner wanted to raise arguments on the basis of certain documents which were not produced before the District Forum.  State Commission did not permit the petitioner to do so.  State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal with Rs.500/- as costs.  State Commission, in its order, observed that instead of taking suitable action against the trespassers, allottees were being asked to remove them at their own level which shows the callous attitude of the officers in not providing the required relief.  It was held that officers of the Trust failed to discharge their duties in the right perspective. 

Petitioner, being aggrieved, as filed the present Revision Petition.

The case was adjourned by us on 3.12.2009 with observation that this Commission would consider the question regarding waiver/reduction of the compensation amount provided the petitioner gives vacant possession of the plot to the respondent within 3 months from the date of passing of the order.  Thereafter the case came up on 29.3.2010.  On that date, counsel for the petitioner did not appear and instead proxy counsel appeared and made a statement that the counsel for the petitioner had not yet received report from the petitioner to the effect that vacant possession of the plot had been handed over to the respondent.  The case was adjourned for today at his request. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been handed over to the respondent.  She further states that the petitioner is not in a position to hand over the vacant possession.  She referred to some agreement which had been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent which is not on record and had not been produced before the District Forum as well.  She is not in possession of the said document even today.  Based on the agreement which had never been produced, no relief can be granted.  Resolution 13/12 dated 9.1.1997 of the agreement under which the plots were allotted to the respondents is on record.  Resolution of the Board which states that in the areas of Samanvaya Nagar and Shyam Nagar, if there was any encroachment on the plot, then it would be the liability of the plot-holder to get the same evicted and the trust would provide every possible help.  Similar submission was made before the State Commission which was rejected by observing thus :

“We have heard both the counsels and have gone through the file.  The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the same stand as it was taken before the learned forum.  The question is whether physical possession of the plots in question was handed over by the non-applicant or not.  We find that no physical possession was given to the complainant.  The inquiry report dated 13^th March 2007 submitted by the Commissioner, Jodhpur reveals that Khasra No.46 measuring 455 bigas of land was allotted to the appellant by the Collector, Jodhpur, the possession of which was obtained by the appellant on 19.4.1978.  When the land was set apart for the proposed Scheme few encroachments were already there and even after allotment encroachments were made.  The report of the Secretary, UIT Jodhpur submitted to the Commissioner, Jodhpur further goes to show that no possession was handed over to the complainant by the appellant.  Surprisingly the stand taken before the Forum was that the possession was handed over to the complainant whereas from the file of the appellant such a fact is missing.  It is crystal clear from the material on record that possession of the land in question was never handed over to the complainant.  The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of argument took a different turn and submitted that as per the resolution of the Trust dated 9.1.1997, it was made clear that in case of any trespass, it would be the responsibility of the allottee himself to remove those encroachments and to achieve that object full assistance will be rendered by the Trust.  We fail to understand how this condition could be imposed by the appellant.  This appears to be a unilateral decision taken by the Trust without taking the allottees into confidence.  The allottees should have been informed of the decision.  It is a one side stand, which could not be made applicable to the complainant.  Even otherwise such a resolution was never brought to the notice of the learned forum.  If we look at the allotment letters issued in relation to the plots in question, we find that no such condition was imposed.  On the contrary it was made clear that the physical demarcation would be possible only after the trespassers are removed from the site.  This shows that the possession was to be handed over after shifting the trespassers.  The letters dated 14^th May, 2004 and 2^nd June, 2004 further go to show that the concerned officers were asked to assist the complainant in taking the physical possession of land in question.  As the possession has not yet been handed over to the complainant, the order passed by the learned Forum cannot be said to be perverse or illegal.  The learned Forum has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to the complainant and it has also rightly fastened the responsibility on the erring officers because of not handing over the possession after removing the trespassers.  Instead of taking a suitable action against the trespassers, the allottees are being asked to remove them at their own level, which shows the callous attitude of the officers in not providing the required relief.  In fact the officers of the Trust have failed to discharge their duties in a right perspective.  We also note that the complainant has unnecessarily been dragged to this Commission by filing appeal, knowing fully well that the stand taken before the Forum was contrary to the record.”

Nothing has come on record that the petitioner had in any way provided any help to the respondent in the eviction of the encroachment.

We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  Petitioner is clearly guilty of deficiency in service.  Petitioner has been changing its stand from time to time to wriggle out of his commitment.  Possession was not handed over to the respondent even after receiving full payment.  No merit.  Dismissed.