DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.416 of 2006

      Smt. Geeta,

      W/o Sri Sanjay Chaurasiya,

      R/o E-31, Sector-G,

      LDA Colony, Kanpur Road,

      Lucknow.               

         ……Complainant

Versus

            1. Lucknow Development Authority,

               Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar,

               Lucknow.

               Through Secreatry, Sri Shobhnath Bind.

          2.  Sri K.K. Singh,

               Sampati Adhikari,

               Lucknow Development Authority,

               Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

                                                                      .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthi, Member.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for directing the OPs to give the possession of the house after taking the remaining instalments but without any interest from the Complainant and for payment of Rs.15,000.00 as compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as cost of litigation from the OPs.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that the OPs allotted a House No.E-32/G to the Complainant on the basis of registration by the Complainant on 12.04.1991. The Complainant came to know from the OPs that the cost of the house is Rs.32,100.00 and that an instalment of Rs.269.00 per month should be deposited forthwith and that the information

-2-

about the possession shall be given later on but no information was given to the Complainant despite Complainant writing letters to the OPs and making the payment within the time frame. The possession was not given to her. After some time when the Complainant went to the spot then she found someone else, in possession of the house on the basis of allotment done by the LDA. The Complainant made a complaint regarding this but no reply was given. The Complainant got a letter dated 06.11.1998 that she should come with all the relevant documents and she should give affidavit that she is the real allottee of the house whereupon the Complainant went to OPs on 12.11.1998 and showed all the documents and also filed an affidavit and she was told by the OPs that she would be given the information about the possession of the house but no information was given to her. Thereafter again a letter dated 03.07.2004 was sent to the Complainant that the Complainant should appear in the office of the OPs with all the documents on 15.07.2004 otherwise her claim will not be tenable but the letter was replied on 28.07.2004 that the letter itself was sent on 12.07.2004, hence there was no question of she being available in the office of the OPs on 15.07.2004, hence it is clear that the intention of the OPs was to see that the forged Geeta alias Vinita W/o Sri Vinod Kumar should get ownership of the house as official of OPs had connived with the forged Geeta for their personal gain. She again wrote a letter to the LDA and then again she was called upon to bring original documents whereupon the Complainant asked them as to why again and again verification is being done when the Complainant had already shown the papers and the Complainant again sent a letter to the OPs but it was refused by the OPs, hence this complaint for direction to the OPs to give the possession of the house after taking the remaining instalments but without any interest etc.

-3-

          The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the LDA had constructed certain EWS houses for being allotted to the SC and ST candidates. The Complainant deposited Rs.500.00 towards registration charges on 12.04.1991 as is revealed from the photocopy of the challan attached by her with the present complaint. It is to be stated that no application or any document is available in the office of the OPs. The allotment letter dated 01.06.1991 attached with the annexure 2 of the complaint, appears to be fake as no such file of allotment is available in the office of the OPs. Besides as per the records, house No.E-32/G, which the Complainant claims to have been allotted to her, was actually allotted to Geeta W/o Vino Kumar on 13.06.1991from out of the house reserved for SC and ST candidates. Smt. Geeta W/o Sri Vinod Kumar had attached a SC certificate with an affidavit with her application and she had also deposited Rs.500.00 towards registration charges. The aforesaid H.No.E-32/G was allotted to the Complainant through letter dated 13.06.1991 but thereafter taking lease rent one monthly instalment etc., the OPs had executed a hire purchase agreement on 03.09.1993 in favour of Geeta W/o Sri Vinod Kumar and had also delivered possession of the house to her. In the case of the Complainant Smt. Geeta W/o Sri Sanjay Chaurasia it is claimed that the house in question was allotted to her through letter dated 01.06.1991 but there is no mention of any deposit of lease rent one month instalment for hire purchase agreement in the complaint. Now there are two claimants of the same name viz. Geeta W/o Sri Vinod Kumar and the other Geeta W/o Sri Sanjay Chaurasia. On this controversy the OPs asked both the Geetas to submit the original documents relating to registration allotment letter, agreement letter and the deposit receipts together with the caste certificate. The detail enquiries had revealed that both the Geetas are not the genuine persons for being allotted any house

-4-

reserved for SC and ST candidates as both of them do not belong to SC and ST. While Smt. Geeta W/o Sri Vinod Kumar is Srivastava by caste whereas Geeta W/o Sri Sanjay Chaurasia actually is Jaiswal and they have fraudulently obtained the allotment letters with the connivance of the dealing clerks. The complaint was lodged against Geeta W/o Vinod Kumar with the SSP, Lucknow on 24.06.2005 and the case of the Complainant Geeta W/o Sri Sanjay Chaurasia was referred to Tehsildar, Sadar for verification of her caste. No allotment order as claimed by the Complainant is available in the office of the OPs. Besides there was no question of delivery of the possession of the house to the Complainant without having got deposited the lease rent, advance instalment of house execution of hire purchase agreement etc. From the enquiries made in case of both the Geetas, it is clear that the Complainant is not entitled for a house which is reserved for SC/ST candidates. On the aforesaid ground this complaint deserves to be dismissed.

          The Complainant has filed her affidavit in support of evidence and against the WS of OPs with paper No.1  to 17 and also find an affidavit in support of the complaint with 6 annexures. The Complainant has filed supplementary affidavit. The OPs have filed the affidavit of Sri N.N.Singh, Deputy Secretay, LDAwith paper No. 1 to 55.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant was duly allotted a H.No.E-32/G by the OPs which was reserved for the SC/ST category applicants or not, and if so whether the OP has committed deficiency in service in not executing the registration of the house in question and delivering the possession of the Complainant and if so its consequences.

          In this case, the Complainant gets herself registered for allotment of a house by depositing Rs.500.00 on 12.04.1991

-5-

and that she was allotted a H.No.E-32/G by letter dated 01.06.1991. According to her she thereafter did not get any information, hence she met the OPs personally where she was told that the cost of the house is Rs.32,100.00 and monthly instalment is Rs.269.00 and that the information about the possession shall be given later on but despite Complainant depositing the instalment and writing letters to the OPs the possession was not given and when she went to the spot after some time she found that someone else in the possession of the house in question. But in this regard, the stand of the OPs is that there were two allottees both having the same names of Geeta and so when the matter was enquired then it was found that both the persons were not liable for the allotment as the scheme in question where the house was allotted the houses were meant for only SC/ST candidates where as neither the Complainant nor the other Geeta were SC candidates and that even though hire purchase agreement was executed and possession delivered to the Geeta W/o Sri Vinod Kumar. An FIR was lodged against Geeta W/o Sri Vinod Kumar. In this case, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the OPs that the Complainant was not at all entitled to the house in question as she did not produce the original documents pertaining to the allotment of a house in question. There is no evidence to show that the Complainant had deposited the required amount of advance instalment of house, lease rent and the amount for execution of the hire purchase agreement etc. It has specifically been argued by the learned Counsel for the OPs that the Complainant Geeta was of Jaiswal caste and therefore she was not entitled to the allotment of house which was reserved for SC candidate as she was not the SC candidate. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the OPs that the other Geeta was also not SC candidate, therefore even after execution of the hire purchase agreement and the delivery of the possession the OPs took action against her and lodged an

-6-

FIR against her. The Complainant has filed the original letter on the basis of which she claims that she was allotted a H.No.E-32/G in Kanpur Road Scheme but she has not been able to counter the argument as to how the house was allotted to her when it was meant for only SC candidate. She nowhere claim herself to be a SC candidate, therefore she could not have been allotted a house which was reserved for SC candidates under a 20 point programme for Kanpur Road Scheme. It is also argued by the Counsel for the OP that the Complainant’s husband Sri Sanjay Chaurasia has already been allotted a H.No.E-31/G, Kanpur Road Scheme which is adjacent to the house No. E-32/G, Kanpur Road Scheme allegedly allotted to the Complainant. It has been stated on affidavit by Sri N.N. Singh, Deputy Secretary, LDA that Sri Sanjay Chaurasia has filed an affidavit before the competent authority wherein he has mentioned that Smt. Geeta is his wife and that she wants her name to be recorded in the registry of H.No.E-31/G, Kanpur Road Scheme. It is again noticeable that the Complainant does not counter the allegation in specific terms by filing rejoinder that her husband is not the allottee of H.No.E-31/G and that her name has not been recorded in the registry of the H.No.E-31/G. On the aforesaid ground it is argued by the learned Counsel for the OPs that as per the established norm of the LDA no two persons of the same family can be allotted a house in Lucknow and as Complainant’s husband was already allotted a house as is evident from the documents and affidavits filed by the OPs then there is no question of allotment of a house to the Complainant i.e. the wife of Sri Sanjay Chaurasia who has already been allotted the house and incidentally the adjacent house of Sanjay Chaurasia. Therefore, from the discussions made above, it is clear that the Complainant was not eligible to be allotted a house in the scheme in question. Besides her husband was already allotted a house in the scheme so there

-7-

was no question of the wife i.e. the Complainant to be allotted a house in the same scheme within the limits of the LDA. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that this Complainant has not been given a possession of the house whereas the other Geeta who was also not eligible to get the house in question as she was also not SC candidate, no action was taken against that Geeta. Here, of course, the allotment to the other Geeta to LDA was questionable but just because the OP has acted wrongly in the case of the other Geeta does not entitle the Complainant to get the house in question allotted to her. There are certainly questions on the working of the LDA as they themselves assail the allotment of two Geetas done by them only. It is also astonishing that the OPs file an FIR against the other Geeta but still as divulged by this Complainant the OPs do not go for cancellation of the allotment made to the other Geeta. Very interestingly the OPs have assailed the allotment of the Complainant Smt. Geeta on the ground of she being not a SC candidate but ironically they allot a house to her husband Sri Sanjay Chaurasia from out of the houses which pertain to the category of the SC/ST candidate. The entire working of the OPs smacks of evil design and certainly puts a big question mark on the working of the OPs. It is very essential for the OPs to really make an enquiry into the matter against the members of their staff and officials because of whom such glaring illegalities have been committed at their end and action to be taken against the erring official.

          However, from the discussions made above, it is clear that the allotment to the Complainant, was not at all made properly and that the house in question could not have been allotted to the Complainant firstly because she not being a SC candidate and secondly because her husband was also allotted a house in the same scheme, and therefore she was not entitled to get a house allotted in the scheme which was meant for

-8-

SC/ST candidates and where her husband was allotted a house. Therefore, the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service in not executing the registry of the house and giving possession of the same. However, the OPs have certainly committed deficiency in service in not refunding the amount deposited by the Complainant with the OPs. The Complainant therefore is entitled to get the refund of the amount deposited by her with interest. From the record, it transpires that the Complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.5,396.40 with the OPs, hence she is entitled to get the same with interest. The Complainant is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,396.40 (Rupees Five Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six and Forty Paise Only) with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.

          The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.

  (Rajarshi Shukla)          (Anju Awasthy)            (Vijai Varma)

         Member                          Member                 President

Dated:  22   September, 2015