Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/395

Harjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Dalip Garg, ADv.

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 395 of 20.05.2016

Date of Decision            :   30.01.2017 

 

1.Smt.Harjit Kaur wife of Late Sh.Jagjit Singh,

2.Charandeep Singh,

3.Tejpal Singh sons of late Sh.Jagjit Singh, r/o Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana through their special attorney Harparshad Singh son of S.Iqbal Singh son of S.Teja Singh, r/o 28, Flower Dale, Barewal Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainants

                                                         Versus

 

1.Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman/Administrator.

2.The Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainants                    :          Sh.Dalip Garg, Advocate

For OPs                          :          Sh.Jagdev Singh, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Sh.Jagjit Singh, husband of complainant no.1, but father of complainant no.2 and 3 expired on 24.4.2009. Complainants are the only legal and natural heirs of said Sh.Jagjit Singh because his mother predeceased  him. Sh.Jagjit Singh originally was allotted plot No.598-G in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana scheme, but alternative plot No.1014-G in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana scheme was further allotted to him. After death of Sh.Jagjit Singh, complainants applied for transfer of said plot in their names with Ops by calling upon them to issue allotment letter. Request in that respect was submitted along with copies of natural heir certificate issued by S.D.M.Ludhiana. However, Ops insisted for production of legal heir certificate. Ops refused to allot the plot unless and until legal heir certificate is produced. Earlier, Writ Petition No.23728 of 2011 was preferred before the Hon’ble High Court, in which, it was admitted as if complainants are the legal heirs of late Sh.Jagjit Singh. That Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.5.2012 with directions to Ops to include the names of the complainants, if found eligible into draw of lot to be held on 30.5.2012. So, name of late Sh.Jagjit Singh was put in the draw of lot and alternative plot No.1014-G was allotted to the complainants vide memo No.LIT/5009 dated 19.8.2015. A letter was sent in the name of late Sh.Jagjit Singh through attorney Sh.Harparshad Singh. Demand of legal heir certificate was put forth and thereafter, the complainants approached Ops for transfer of the plot in their names by complying with the formalities of depositing price of plot at reserve rate of Rs.1455/- per sq.yards. However, Ops procrastinated the matter and ultimately, the complainants served notice through letter dated 7.9.2015. Thereafter, again Ops were approached in April 2016, but to no effect. Act of Ops in not transferring the plot at reserve price alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, capricious as well as violative of principles of natural justice. Complainants suffered mental tension and harassment and as such, compensation for amount of Rs.3 lac claimed along with directions to Ops to transfer the plot No.1014-G situate in 475 acres scheme known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana after receiving the reserve price @Rs.1455/- per sq.yards. Litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable and same is barred by limitation; complainants have no cause of action; complainants are not consumers; complaint being false and frivolous merits dismissal and  no prior notice issued to the Ops before filing the complaint. Rather, it is claimed that the complainants should have filed strict proof regarding their relationship with Sh.Jagjit Singh or regarding their being the only legal heirs. It is claimed that furnishing of legal heir certificate is requirement of law. Admittedly, alternative plot No.1014-G in lieu of earlier plot No.598-G was allotted after falling of the area of plot No.598-G in City Centre scheme. Filing of Writ Petition and passing of order by the Hon’ble High Court are admitted facts. Due intimation regarding allotment of alternative plot No.1014-G was sent through memo No.LIT/5009 dated 19.8.2015. Complainants failed to comply with the requisite formalities for transfer of the plot. Rate of the plot to be charged as per State Government directions at the time of issuance of allotment/transfer letter. Ops vide memo No.LIT/6684 dated 15.10.2015 has already intimated the complainants that they have failed to comply with the requirement of submission of valid legal heir certificate. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and nor they adopted any unfair trade practice. So, Ops not liable to pay any compensation.

3.                Counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.PA of Sh.Harparshad Singh, Special attorney of complainants along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Sh.Harbans Singh, Senior Assistant in the office of OPs tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RA along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Copy of power of attorney executed by the complainants in favour of Sh.Harparshad Singh has been produced on record as Ex.C1 and as such, Sh.Harparshad Singh is competent to represent the complainants. Rs.950/- were deposited in the name of Sh.Jagjit Singh on 18.11.1982 through receipt Ex.C2 with Ops and as such, it is obvious that virtually plot No.598 in Block-G in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana having area of 125 Sq.yards, was allotted to deceased Sh.Jagjit Singh and that is why, letter Ex.C4 was issued in that respect. However, this plot fell in scheme of City Centre and that is why in pursuance of the directions issued through judgment Ex.C3 passed by the Hon’ble High Court Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, name of Sh.Jagjit Singh was included in the draw of lots held for allotting the alternative plots. As Sh.Jagjit Singh became successful and that is why,  plot No.1014-G in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar was allotted in the name of     Sh.Jagjit Singh as revealed by contents of Ex.R2. Complainants claims themselves to be the only legal/natural legal heirs of Sh.Jagjit Singh and that is why, they through letter Ex.C6 called upon Ops to transfer the allotted plot in their names by claiming that there is no need of production of succession certificate. Letter Ex.C6 in this respect was issued by the complainants to Ops. Through Ex.C4 itself, the complainants were required to submit the legal heir certificate/Will/Succession certificate at earliest. Certificate of legal heir issued by the S.D.M.Ludhiana in favour of the complainants is produced on record as Ex.C5, but it is claimed that the said certificate is not accepted by Ops and that is why, transfer of plot has not taken place from the name of Sh.Jagjit Singh to that of the complainants. Ex.C4 is the same thing as      is Ex.R4. Through letter Ex.R5, complainants again were required to produce the legal heir certificate/Will/succession certificate. This letter Ex.R5 is of date 15.5.2015. There is no document produced on record to show that certificate Ex.C5 actually was produced by the complainants with Ops or their employees. So, submissions advanced by counsel for Ops has force that as legal heir certificate not submitted and that is why, letters Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 were issued respectively on 19.8.2015 and again on 15.10.2015. So, fault lay with the complainants in not submitting the legal heir certificate. In case titled as Improvement Trust vs. Gurmit Kaur and others-III(2004)CPJ-265(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh), it was found that the complainants produced legal heir certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner concerned and the same fact was admitted and that is why action of not transferring the plot, was held to be deficiency in service. However, the factum qua submission of legal heir certificate not proved by the complainants, but receipt of the same denied by the Ops and as such, deficiency in service on the part of Ops cannot be inferred. Even affidavit required by contents of letter Ex.R3 has not been submitted as per contention of counsel for Ops which certainly has force because submission of affidavit regarding non holding or holding of any other plot in India as required by the condition no.1 of Ex.R3 is not shown to be tendered. So, deficiency is on the part of the complainants in not abiding by the terms of Ex.R3.

7.                The other contentious issue is as to whether the allotment of the alternative plot No.1014-G should be on the old reserve rate @Rs.1455/- per sq.yards or not? There is nothing on record to suggest that allotment letter with respect to the original allotted plot No.598-G was ever issued in favour of Sh.Jagjit Singh and as such, it has to be held that such allotment letter never issued by the Ops. As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and another vs. Manju Jain and others-2010 AIR (SC)3817, mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right of allotment. Further, it is laid down in this case that without acceptance, allotment remains of no significance. So, even if the complainants may have remained successful in draw of lots of allotment of plot in 1999, but the same does not confer any right, title or interest on him qua allotment of plot No.598-G even.

8.                Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.25137 of 2014 titled as Avtar Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 9.12.2014, has specifically held that conditions regarding allotment of alternative plots at the current collector         rates is in accordance with law in view of earlier decided case of Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Sandeep and others- LPA No.2096 of 2011, decided on 25.4.2012 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. So, virtually it was held that price prevailing on the date of allotment can be charged. Decision given by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.25137 of 2014 directly pertains to the matters with respect to the allotment of alternative plots to the allottees, whose plots became part of City Centre developed by OP1. So, this decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana directly pertains to the case in hand. Decision given by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana is binding on this Forum and as such, all other cited decisions are not binding except one given by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in case Avtar Kaur and others (Supra). Rather, all the four terms and conditions of letter Ex.R3 (produced in this case) were directly under challenge in above cited case of Avtar Kaur and others(Supra). These terms and conditions were held by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh to be binding on the allottees, to be allotted alternative plots, whose land became part of City Centre Scheme developed by OP1. Same is the position in the case before us and as such, in view of above referred decision of Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, there is no escape from the conclusion that Ops entitled to charge the current collector rates. This decision has much binding force to the facts of this case, particularly when the allotment letter with respect to the plot No.598-G, on the basis of which, complainants originally stacked claim, has never been issued in favour of the complainants.

9.                If any wrong order or decision in favour of any particular party has been given by the Ops, then the same does not entitle the complainants to claim the benefits on the basis of wrong decision. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in case of Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others-2010(11)SCC-455. So, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for Ops has force that if the others had to pay the price as is mentioned in Ex.R3, then the complainants not entitled to the benefit of wrong decisions, if any taken by the Ops in respect of others. It is so because illegality or wrong cannot be allowed to perpetuate, legally. Besides, as per law laid down in case of Vipul Rai Sharma vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana-1991-PLJ-660(Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court), it is right of improvement trust to charge higher price because fixation of price is basically a matter of Authorities to consider and Courts cannot substitute their own opinion unless action is apparently arbitrary. As the Improvement Trust has taken the decision for charging the price of the alternative plots on current collector rates after approval from the Government of Punjab through letter Ex.R3 and as such, the action of charging higher price is not an arbitrary one.

10.              In cases titled as Avtar Krishan Sood vs. State of Haryana and others-1988(2)RRR-151(Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court); Haryana Urban Development Authority and another vs. Satish Chander Sharma-2010(2)CPJ-310(N.C.); Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Vijay Aggarwal-2004-AIR(SC)-3952; Haryana Urban Development Authority and another vs. Satish Kumar-2004 AIR (SCW)-4942(S.C.); Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehar Singh-2009(1)CLT-607(The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh) and The Welfare & Service Organizations (Regd) and another vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others-2003 NCJ 357(N.C.), alternative plot in lieu of original allotted one were ordered to be allotted without charging the increased price due to fault of authority concerned or on account of pending litigation or non availability of plots or due to delivery of original plots became impractical, but those are not the reasons in this case before us. In none of these cited cases, permission of State Government concerned was obtained for charging price at current collector rates, but that permission has been obtained in this case before us through letter Ex.R3, validity of which has been upheld by the   Hon’ble Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in case Avtar Kaur and others(Supra). So, facts of these cited cases are quite distinct, than those of the facts in the case before us and as such, benefit from the ratio of these cases cannot be availed by the counsel for complainant.

11.              As the complainants have not agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of Ex.R3 and as such, they cannot claim for allotment of alternative plot on earlier fixed reserve price of Rs.1455/- per sq.yards. Rather, the complainants can stack claim with respect to allotted alternative plot No.1014-G in draw of lots on payment of the price as per terms and conditions of Ex.R3 only. If at all rescission of the contract required, then remedy available with the complainants is to approach the Civil Court because this Forum to assume jurisdiction only in case Ops adopted unfair trade practice or provided deficient services, which in fact is not the case. Rescission of the contract arrived at possible  only under provisions of Indian Contract Act or the Specific Relief Act and not by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Virtually, the complainants through this complaint seeking rescission of the contract without mentioning the grounds on which, such rescission may take place. However, ground of charging of current collector rates is tenable because of the decision given by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in case of Avtar Kaur(ibid) and as such, this complaint merits dismissal.

12.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                        (G.K. Dhir)

               Member                                                                 President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:30.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.