Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/699

Meena Rani - 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. 699 of 07.10.2014

Date of Decision            :   30.01.2017 

 

Meena wife of Shri Ashok Kumar son of Kewal Krishan, resident of Mohalla Sethian, Faridkot through her General Attorney Iqbal Singh son of Teja Singh, resident of 28, Flower Dale Barewal Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         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 complainant            :          Sh.Dalip Garg, Advocate

For OPs                          :          Sh.R.K.Gupta, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant applied for allotment of plot measuring 125 Sq.yards in the development scheme of 475 Acres known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana in 1982. Registration fee of Rs.950/- was paid to OP2. Name of the             complainant was registered in the list of persons, to whom, the plots were allotted through draw. Intimation about registration was given to the complainant by informing that she should attend the function of draw of lots of plots on 10.09.1999 at 10:00 AM. Complainant attended that function and remained successful in the draw of lots. Name of the complainant was put in the list of successful candidate as displayed on the notice board of the trust. Plot No.666-G, measuring 125 sq.yards was allotted to the complainant in the above said scheme. Complainant thereafter approached Ops for completion of formalities by way of deposit of price of the plot at the reserve price at Rs.1455/- per square yards. However, Ops put off the matter on one pretext or the other and failed to execute and register the sale deed on receiving the sale consideration. However, Ops took false plea as if the said plot has fallen in new shopping complex scheme known as City Centre. That excuse of Ops alleged to be illegal and arbitrary. City Centre scheme came into existence in pursuance of resolution No.130 dated 23.09.1999 of the Trust, but draw of lots in question took place on 10.09.1999. Rather, through resolution No.130, Ops requested Government through writing for a revised layout plan vide LIT No.4 of 2000 dated 28.6.2000. Sanction was granted by the Government for alternative plots to the persons, whose plots fell in City Centre Scheme. Number of plots are lying vacant in 475 acres scheme and Ops cannot claim that alternative plots are not available. However, complainant claims that in case, the alleged plots not available in 475 acres scheme, then another plot in equally developed scheme may be allotted as per terms and conditions, but at the same price. Non allotment of the alternative plot amounts to illegal trade practice, which has caused mental and physical tension to the complainant. In case, Ops would have given the possession of the plot No.666-G in time to the complainant, then the complainant would have been saved from unnecessary harassment. Rs.2 lac claimed as compensation on account of mental and physical tension and financial loss suffered by the complainant. Reference to the cases of Jaisi Ram vs.LIT etc was made for stacking the claim. As per operative part of the case of Baljit Singh vs. The Secretary, Govt. of Punjab dated 31.10.2006, the Trust felt necessity for calling upon the Government to reconsider the resolution No.3 dated 31.1.2005 because of filing of Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court by applicants. Vide resolution No.8, Resolution No.3 dated 31.1.2005 was reconsidered and approved. It is claimed that OPs were directed to consider the cases of the complainant in the appeals referred at page no.6 and 7 of the complaint                      in accordance with resolution No;.8 dated                                                        21.2.2006. Matter alleged to be finally decided by the Hon’ble High Court (DB) in Writ Petition No.578 of 2004 in case titled as Jaswant Singh Mehra and others vs. State of Punjab & Ludhiana Improvement Trust and others. Sh.Dayal Chand Garg submitted reply in the shape of affidavit for claiming that earlier the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide its resolution No.56 dated 22.12.2003 decided to refund the money with interest and the action of Ludhiana Improvement Trust was challenged. Even as per that affidavit of Sh.Dyal Chand Garg, Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide its resolution No.3 dated 31.1.2005 has decided to allot the alternative plots to the petitioners and all other persons similarly situated. It is claimed that as per knowledge of the complainant, this Forum has already decided the similar complaints and OPs going to hold a draw of lots for allotment of plots of those owners, whose land has been acquired for City Centre. Alternative plots in the draw of lots,going to be held on 12.6.2012 will be allotted. Complainant requested OPs to put her name in those draw of lots, but OPs refused to do so, which gave cause of action to the complainant to file this complaint. Prayer made for directing OPs to handover the possession of plot No.666-G, situate in 475 Acre Scheme also known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar,   Ludhiana, to the complainant. Even directions sought against OPs for calling upon them to execute the sale deed of the said plot in favour of the complainant by receiving the reserve price at the rate of Rs.1455/- per square yard. Further, directions sought against OPs for calling upon them to pay compensation of Rs.2 lac for mental and physical tension as well as financial loss. Costs of Rs.20,000/- more claimed. In the alternative, it is claimed that in case, the plot is not available in 475 Acre scheme, then complainant be ordered to be allotted a plot in another equally developed scheme on the same terms and conditions and on the same price by executing and registering the sale deed after receiving the full payment @1455/- per square yard. Directions also sought against OPs for putting the complainant in possession of the plot.

2.                In written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act”). Non delivery of the plot is not an unfair trade practice. Mere application for getting the allotment of plot or success in the draw of lots does not confer any vested right or title in a person. There is no estoppel against law. Any wrong decision or order passed by OPs in favour of a particular party/person does not confer any right to claim benefit of inadvertent wrong decision. Legally there can be no estoppel of any nature against the state in framing, changing, withdrawing and modifying the policies as per requirement and no policy can be freezed for ever and state has to keep the public need and interest as object of its policies. Complaint alleged to be barred by limitation. Besides, it is claimed that complicated question of law and facts requiring elaborate evidence are involved, due to which, the matter can be decided by civil court of competent jurisdiction. As per the policy of Government, it was decided to allot new plots to the applicants, who were earlier successful for the allotment of plots measuring 125 Sq.yards situated in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana scheme. These new plots were to be allotted to the persons, whose plots came under   City Centre Scheme. Draw of plots were held on 17.9.2012 and 30.10.2012. The complainant was allotted a plot No.410-D, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. OPs passed resolution No.59 dated 9.10.2013 and sent the same for approval to the Government. The same was approved by the State Government vide memo No.44498 dated 12.11.2014 with certain conditions. A letter bearing memo No.10746 dated 21.11.2014 was issued to the complainant for complying with the conditions, so that the allotment letter could be issued. That letter was received by the complainant, but she failed to comply with the conditions and as such, it was inferred as if the complainant is not interested in the plot. On account of failure of the complainant to comply with the conditions of the allotment, the allotment in favour of the complainant can be cancelled by OPs. In view of the allotment of the plot to the complainant, complaint has become infructous. Admittedly, the plot No.666-G, S.B.S.Nagar, Ludhiana, measuring 125 Sq.yards was allotted to the complainant in a draw of plots, but no allotment letter was issued by OPs in favour of the complainant. Merely allotment of the plot or success in the draw of lots, does not confer any vested right in favour of the complainant. Admittedly, intimation to complainant or to other applicants was sent regarding the draw of plots to be held on 10.9.1999. As no allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainant and as such, any allotment by draw of plots can be withdrawn/cancelled before the deposit of ¼th price of the plot and execution of agreement of sale. The allotment letters were not issued in favour of the complainant and other successful applicants because they framed a new commercial scheme known as City Centre Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Plot in question along with other plots came in the City Centre Scheme, which was announced vide resolution No.130 dated 23.9.1999. As per the policy of the Government, complainant along with others, who earlier remained successful for allotment of the plots measuring 125 Sq.yards situated in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana and whose land came under City Centre Scheme will be entitled to participate in the draw of lot to be held on 17.9.2012 and 30.10.2012. The complainant was allotted a plot No.410-D, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Resolution No.59 dated 9.10.2013 was passed by Ops and the sent to Government for approval vide memo No.44498 dated 12.11.2014 with certain conditions.                 So, a letter was issued to the complainant to comply with those conditions, so that allotment letter can be issued. Even after receipt of the said letter, complainant failed to comply with conditions resulting in cancellation of the allotment of the plot. It was fully known to the complainant that the land of the plots measuring 125 sq. yards including the plot allotted to the complainant in draw of plots held on 10.9.1999, have come under the City Centre Scheme of OPs, on account of which, the allotment letters have not been issued by the Ops to the successful applicants. In view of the right available to the OPs to withdraw the allotment of the plots or the scheme, Ops acted within the statutory provisions of law, rules and regulations. Matter of revised layout plan No.4 of 2000 dated 28.6.2000 known to everyone because the record in that respect was sent to the Government for allotment of alternative plots. It is denied that many plots are lying vacant in 475 acre scheme. In case, the complainant wants to raise construction of house in the plot, then she had to execute the general power of attorney in favour of Sh.Sukhdev Singh son of Sh.Dayal Singh through whom the complainant has filed the case. Any decision of this Forum does not create any vested right or title in favour of the complainant. Admittedly, resolution No.56 dated 22.12.2003 and then resolution No.3 dated 31.3.2005 were passed. Even resolution No.8 dated 21.2.2006 was passed. Memo No.7281 dated 8.9.2006 was received from the Department of Local Government, Government of Punjab, but the same does not create any right, title or interest in favour of the allottees. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that complainant is not entitled to any relief.

3.                Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of Sh.Iqbal Singh, General Attorney of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and Ex.J1 to Ex.J15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Harinder Singh Chahal, Executive Officer of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 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.                From the pleadings of the parties, it is made out that the complainant applied for allotment of plot measuring 125 Sq.yards in development scheme of 475 acres known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana in 1982 by depositing Rs.950/- and thereafter, she remained successful allottee by way of allotment of plot No.666-G. However, it is the claim of Ops that the allotted plot of the complainant along with other allotted plots of others in this Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Scheme came in the scheme of City Centre and that is why draw of plots for such allottee was held on 17.10.2012 and 30.10.2012, in which, the complainant was allotted plot No.410-D in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Allotment letter regarding the earlier draw of plots on 10.9.1999 was not issued to the complainant and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that just declaration of complainant as successful allottee does not confer any right, title or interest on her in respect of allotment of plot on the old price of Rs.1455/-.

7.                Ex.C1 is the allotment letter of plot No.1056-G measuring 125 sq.yards in development scheme of 475 acres of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana in the name of Smt.Neelam Kumari, whereas Ex.C2 is the allotment letter of plot No.716-G in favour of Smt.Gian Kaur and Ex.C3 is the allotment letter of plot No.717-G in favour of Sh.Bhajan Kumar. However, no allotment letter regarding allotment of plot No.666-G in this Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana produced on record and as such, submissions advanced by counsel for Ops has force that actually allotment letter in favour of the complainant was never issued regarding the draw of lots of plots held in 1999.

8.                Ex.C4 is memo No.10746 dated 21.11.2014 issued by Ops in favour of the complainant for disclosing that she had been declared as successful allottee in draw of lots held in pursuance of resolution No.59 dated 9.10.2013 passed by Ops and as approved by the Government vide memo of 12.11.2014. Through this memo Ex.C4, the complainant was called upon to comply with the terms and conditions of the scheme approved by the Government of Punjab, so that allotment letter of alternative plot may be issued in her favour.

9.                Perusal of this letter Ex.C4 further reveals that plot of the complainant came under City Centre Scheme and that is why she was to be allotted alternative plot. It is contended by counsel for Ops that these terms and conditions never complied by the complainant and as such, she is not entitled for alternative plot. Perusal of list  with respect to draw of plots held pm 30.10.2012 shows that the complainant was allotted alternative plot No.410-D in lieu of old plot No.666-G because the same was necessitated due to coming of plot No.666-G under City Centre Scheme. This un-exhibited record support the claim of Ops that alternative plot in the draw of plots held in 2012 was allotted to the complainant, on account of her being successful in draw of lot of plots. Copy of resolution No.59 produced on record as Ex.R1, which           shows that decision regarding allotment of alternative plots in lieu of plots that have come under City Centre Project Scheme was taken by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and approval of the said decision sought from the Government of Punjab. Copy of this resolution No.59 was sent to the Director Local Bodies Government of Punjab, Chandigarh through letter Ex.R2 dated 15.9.2014 and after approval of the same by the Government, letter Ex.R3=Ex.C1 was sent to the complainant for informing her to comply with the terms and conditions of approved resolution No.59 of 9.10.2013. Approval with respect to resolution No.59 was received through letter Ex.R4 of date 12.11.2014 issued by Local Government Department of Punjab Government. As per terms of Ex.R4, the allottees to whom the alternative plots were to be given were required to submit affidavit as to whether they owned any other plot/house anywhere in India or not? Further as per this letter Ex.R4, allotment of alternative plots was to be made on current collector rates. In case, any allottee found not interested in getting the alternative plots, then he or she will be entitled for the refund of the earnest money with interest @12%. Further, as per contents of Ex.R4, the decision given by the Courts with respect to the pending different matters will be binding. So, it is obvious that current collector rates from the complainant along with other alternative allottees were sought to be realized in accordance with the terms and conditions of letter Ex.R4 issued by the Government of Punjab. That letter Ex.R4 is not under challenge in this case. Rather, this letter Ex.R4 came directly under challenge in Civil Writ Petition No.25137 of 2014 titled as Avtar Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and another before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Through judgment dated 9.12.2014 passed in CWP No.25137 of 2014, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the above said case titled as Avtar Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 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 Hon’ble Division Bench of 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.R4(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 Hon’ble 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 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 as per the terms and conditions of agreement Ex.C4. This decision has much binding force to the facts of this case, particularly when the allotment letter with respect to the plot No.666-G, on the basis of which, complainant originally stacked claim, has never been issued in favour of the complainant and 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, specifically provides that mere draw of lots/allocation  letter  does  not confer any right of allotment. Without acceptance, allotment remains of no significance is also the ratio of law laid down in the above cited case. As the complainant was not allotted any allotment letter and as such, even if she remained successful in draw of lots of allotment of plot in 1999, but same does not confer any right, title or interest on her qua allotment. Even the terms of allotment letters Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 in favour of Neelam Kumari, Gian Kaur and Bhajan Kumar shows that allotment of plots in development scheme of 475 acres in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, was on price mentioned in those allotment letters, subject to variation with reference to the actual measurement of the plot at site as well as subject to enhancement of compensation by the court or otherwise. Through these allotment letters Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, the concerned allottees were held liable to pay the additional price of plot, if any, determined by the Trust within 30 days of the date of demand. In condition No.4 of all above referred allotment letters Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, it is mentioned that the price of allotted plot was subject to variation. Rather, additional price of allotted plot payable by the allottee concerned as per determination by the Improvement Trust within 30 days from the date of demand. Complainant stacking her claim with respect to the payment of price of Rs.1455/- per sq. yards on the basis of these issued allotment letters Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 each. As through condition No.4 of Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 each, it was disclosed specifically to the concerned allottees that price liable to be variation and as such, the complainant has no case made out in view of clause 4 of Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 qua her liability of paying Rs.1455/- per sq. yards alone. Rather, the complainant liable to pay the price at the current collector rate as per terms of Ex.R4 as held by Hon’ble Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in case Avtar Kaur and others(Supra), particularly when mere issue of allotment letter does not confer any right of allotment on complainant or others as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as discussed above.

10.              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 complainant 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.R4, then the complainant 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.R4 and as such, the action of charging higher price is not an arbitrary one.

11.              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 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.R4, 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. Even benefit from judgments produced on record as Ex.J1 to Ex.J15 cannot be availed by counsel for complainant, particularly when the authority of letter Ex.R4 has been upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in latest case of Avtar Kaur and others referred above and particularly when the original allotment letters Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 in favour of others, provides for charging of enhanced rates as per determination by the Improvement Trust. So, facts of those reported cases are also distinct, than those of the facts of case in hand. As the complainant herself has not agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of Ex.R4 and as such, she cannot claim for allotment of alternative plot on the earlier fixed reserve price of Rs.1455/- per sq. yards. Being so, complainant not entitled to the relief prayed for in this complaint.

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.