Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/385

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ludhiana Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Manish Verma adv.

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 385 of 16.06.2015

Date of Decision            :   30.01.2017 

 

Parveen Kumar s/o Sh.Dhari Lal, r/o 838/1, Durgapuri, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana through his general power of attorney Jaspal Singh s/o Amarjit Singh r/o Opposite Old DMC Hospital, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

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

2.The Executive Officer of 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.                Op1 invited applications for allotment of residential plots in 475 Acres Development Scheme known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana in 1982 and pursuant thereto, complainant applied by depositing the requisite amount of Rs.950/- vide receipt No.48919 dated 30.11.1982 bearing registration No.1236. After expiry of more than 16 years, Ops held draw in its office on 10.9.1999. Complainant was allotted plot bearing No.644-G, measuring 125 sq. yards in the said scheme because of his remaining successful in the draw of lots. Complainant thereafter requested Ops to get deposited the sale price of this plot and even complete the other required formalities, so that the complainant may raise the construction after getting the building plan sanctioned. After sometime, Ops orally informed the complainant that plot No.644-G measuring 125 sq. yards has fallen in the area of new proposed scheme of city centre shopping complex, due to which, sale price amount cannot be got deposited from the complainant. This plot was allotted to the complainant for residential purpose. Ops were not competent to convert land use of this plot for any other purpose after its allotment to the complainant. However, Ops vide resolution No.130 dated 23.9.1999 illegally and arbitrarily revised its layout plan for constructing city centre shopping complex on the land relating to plot in question. After sometime, Ops assured the complainant regarding allotment of other alternative plot of identical size in some other developed scheme. Thereafter, despite repeated requests submitted by the complainant, Ops failed to allot the alternative plot of similar size. Thereafter, the complainant had to file a complaint before this Forum for seeking directions to Ops to allot an alternative plot. In that complaint titled as Parveen Kumar vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, statements of parties were recorded on 30.4.2012, vide which, assurance for allotment of the alternative plot was given by Ops to the complainant and other effected persons. An alternative plot No.144-D measuring 125 Sq.yards in 475 acre development scheme of Ludhiana Improvement Trust was allotted to the complainant in lieu of the earlier plot No.644-G. After allotment of the alternative plot No.144-D in draw, the Ops failed to issue regular allotment letter to the complainant for more than two years. Memo No.LIT/SB/2549 dated 21.5.2015 was issued by the Ops to the complainant for calling upon him to deposit the amount of Rs.19,50,000/- as sale price of alternate allotted plot. Sale price was sought to be charged @ Rs.15,600/- per sq.yards. Rs.1,17,000/- were sought to be charged as 6% cess charges. Complainant was directed to deposit Rs.4,87,500/-, being 1/4^th of the sale price along with above referred 6% cess charges plus Rs.500/- as security and Rs.100/- as sale agreement fee, but Rs.50/- as site flat fee. Virtually, the complainant was called upon to deposit Rs.6,05,150/- in all within 30 days. This claim alleged to be stacked by Ops illegally because the complainant never refused to fulfill the terms and conditions of the allotment of original plot No.644-G. Even the complainant never refused to deposit the sale price of that original allotted plot No.644-G. Rather, Ops failed to issue the regular allotment letter to the complainant due to change in their scheme. Alternative plot is to be allotted on old rate as per settled legal position. Original settled price was Rs.1455/- per sq.yards and as such, the complainant cannot be penalized for the wrong and illegal acts committed by the Ops. Act of putting forth of the demand of charging sale price @ Rs.15,600/- per sq.yards along with cess charges amount @6% alleged to be illegal. As per knowledge of complainant, Ops had charged Rs.1,81,875/- as sale price of plot No.716-G measuring 125 sq. yards @Rs.1455/- per sq.yards by issuing allotment letter/memo No.LIT/SB/1540 dated 15.2.2000. Even sale price of Rs.1455/- per sq.yards alone was charged with respect to plot No.717-G. Statutory authorities are bound to deal with the cases of allottees on priority basis, but OPs failed to perform their duties as such by not allotting the plot at earliest or executing the sale deed and thereafter, seeking enforcement of demand of enhanced charges @ Rs.15,600/- per sq.yards. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs and by claiming that the complainant has suffered mental pain, tension and agony, prayer made for issue of directions to Ops to issue fresh allotment letter to the complainant with respect to alternative plot No.144-D measuring 125 sq.yards in 475 Acre scheme @Rs.1455/- per sq.yards instead of Rs.15,600/- per sq.yards. Even directions sought against Ops for calling upon them not to charge 6% cess from the complainant on the amount of sale price. Directions also sought for refund of amount of Rs.4,23,275/- (i.e. Rs.6,05,150/- minus Rs.1,81,875/-) because it is claimed that this amount received in excess by Ops by issue of allotment letter dated 21.5.2015. Interest @18% per annum on the excess charged amount of Rs.4,23,275/- even claimed. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OPs, it is claimed that no allotment letter was issued to the successful applicants in the draw held on 10.9.1999 because those plots came in the City Centre Scheme. The mere success in the allotment of    the plots or act of filing of application for allotment of the plot does not create any vested right in favour of the concerned, unless and until the allotment letter is issued and 25% of the amount of total sale price is deposited. No allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainant in respect of draw held on 10.9.1999 and as such, no vested right exist in favour of the complainant. Complainant only deposited the earnest money along with application for allotment of plot. The authority or Government can withdraw the allotment at any time and even can make changes or alternations in the scheme. Letter/ memo No.2549 dated 21.5.2015(an allotment letter) was sent to the complainant and thereafter, as per instructions received from the Government vide letter dated 12.11.2014, complainant was required to comply with the same. Cases of persons in whose favour allotment letters issued and who deposited the whole of the sale price stands on different footing than that of the case of the complainant, who deposited only the earnest money. So, terms and conditions of draw of lots held in 10.9.1999 are not applicable. After issue of memo no.2549 dated 21.5.2015, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6,05,150/- vide receipt No.102891 dated 8.6.2015 without any protest and as such, he accepted the terms and conditions of this memo. Complainant estopped by his act and conduct from challenging the rate of plot now. No wrong decision/order in favour of another confers benefit on             the other like complainant. If a person is granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, then legal right is not conferred on other to claim similar benefit because there can be no                   estoppel against the statutory rules and regulations, particularly when the state has authority to frame, change, withdraw and modify the policy as per the need of the time by keeping in view the public demand or interest. Complicated question of law and facts are involved, due to which, matter can be got decided from Civil Court only .As per the policy of Government, new plots to be allotted to applicants, who earlier remained successful in the draw of lots with respect to plots measuring 125 sq. yards situate in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, but whose plots came under the city centre scheme. Draw of lots was to be held on 17.9.2012 and 30.10.2012. In that draw of lots, complainant was allotted plot No.144-D in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana scheme. Resolution No.59 dated 9.10.2013 passed by Ops was sent to the Government for approval, which was received vide memo No.44498 dated 12.11.2014 with certain conditions. It was thereafter that memo No.9587 dated 15.9.2014 was sent to the department of Local Government. It is claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the price of plots because the same falls within the domain of State Government or the authorities concerned. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of Sh.Jaspal Singh, General power of attorney of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 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.R3 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.                Affidavit Ex.CA of Sh.Jaspal Singh, the general attorney of complainant has been tendered and copy of attorney produced on record as Ex.C1. Receipt Ex.R2 regarding deposit of Rs.950/- dated 30.11.1982 is produced for showing that this amount was deposited along with application for allotment of residential plot. After deposit of this amount of Rs.950/-, letter Ex.C3 was issued by the Ops to the complainant for informing that draw of lots of the plots of 125 sq. yards in the development scheme of 475 acres known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana will be held on 10.9.1999 and on the basis of the same, allotment of plot No.644-G was ordered is an admitted fact by both the parties in their pleadings. However, this allotted plot came in city centre scheme and that is why, alternative plot No.144-D in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana was allotted in the draw of lots held on 17.9.2012 and 30.10.2012. Earlier complaint filed by the complainant was withdrawn in view of the assurance or of providing information that that alternative plot of identical size may be allotted, if the complainant remains successful in the draw of lots. In view of this information, earlier complaint was withdrawn as revealed by contents of Ex.C4. Allotment of alternative plot of 144-D was made by issue of letter Ex.C5, but subject to condition that complainant complies with the terms and conditions of letter No.DSS-TSS-2014/44498 dated 12.11.2014 vide which resolution No.59 dated 9.10.2013 has been approved. Copy of that letter of State Government is produced on record as Ex.C5=Ex.R2. Ex.R3 and Ex.C8=Ex.R1 are the other documents showing as if alternative plot No.144-D having area of 125 sq. yards in Block-D was allotted to the complainant in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana scheme @Rs.15,600/- per sq.yards. It was in pursuance of Ex.C8=Ex.R1 that the complainant was called upon to deposit total price of Rs.19,50,000/-, out of which, 1/4^th was called upon to be deposited within 30 days along with Cess charges of 6%, security of Rs.500/- and site plan fee of Rs.50/-. Complainant virtually was required to deposit Rs.6,05,150/- in the first instance through letter Ex.C8=Ex.R1. Bone of contention remains as to whether the complainant liable to pay the enhanced rate as per the terms and conditions of Ex.C6 or not?

7.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that as plot No.144-D allotted in lieu of old plot No.644-G and as such, Ops bound to charge the old rate of Rs.1455/- per sq. yards only. That submission of counsel for the complainant has no force because it is admitted in the complaint itself that allotment letter with respect to plot No.644-G was not issued. Even no allotment letter with respect to plot No.144-D in favour of complainant has been issued. Only copy of affidavit Ex.C7 submitted by Sh.Jaspal Singh, the attorney of complainant, has been produced to show that alternative plot No.144-D is allotted in lieu of earlier allotted plot No.644-G. Demand draft of Rs.6,05,150/- was submitted by the complainant under protest is a fact borne from the contents of letter Ex.C9 of date 1.6.2015. Copy of that demand draft produced on record as Ex.C10 and copy of IT Form No.29 is produced on record as Ex.C11. Case of Ops is fully believable that allotment letter with respect to plot No.644-G was never issued in favour of the complainant because allotment letters Ex.C12 and Ex.C13 issued in favour of Smt.Gian Kaur and Sh.Bhajan Kumar has alone been produced. Had really allotment letter in favour of complainant with respect to plot No.644-G been issued, then same would have been produced, but that is not done and as such, inference is obvious that actually the allotment letter in favour of complainant was never issued. 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 complainant 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.644-G even.

8.                Terms of letters Ex.C12 and Ex.C13 issued by Ops in favour of Smt.Gian Kaur and Sh.Bhajan Kumar shows that plots No.716-G and 717-G were allotted to them in the development scheme of 475 Acres known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana on price of Rs.1,81,875/- (for each of these allottees respectively). In clause No.4 of both Ex.C12 and Ex.C13, it is specifically mentioned that price of Rs.1,81,875/- is subject to variation with reference to the actual measurement of the plot at site as well as in case of enhancement of compensation by the court or otherwise. Through this clause no.4 of Ex.C12 and Ex.C13 itself, it was disclosed that price of allotted plot will be subject to variation and additional price payable by the allottees concerned as per determination by the Improvement Trust within 30 days from the date of demand. Complainant stacking claim with respect to payment of price @Rs.1455/- per sq.yards on the basis of these allotment letters Ex.C12 and Ex.C13. However, condition No.4 provides for charging of variable prices and as such, complainant cannot claim that his liability of paying the price for the alternative plot is of Rs.1455/- per sq. yards alone. Rather, the complainant liable to pay the price at the current collector rate as per the terms and conditions of Ex.R2=Ex.C6.              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 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.C6=Ex.R1 (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 as per the terms and conditions of letters Ex.C5 & Ex.C6. This decision has much binding force to the facts of this case, particularly when the allotment letter with respect to the plot No.644-G, on the basis of which, complainant originally stacked claim, has never been issued in favour of the complainant.

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 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.C12 &Ex.C13, 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.R1=Ex.C6 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.R1=Ex.C6, 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 complainant has not agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of Ex.C6=Ex.R1 and as such, he cannot claim for allotment of alternative plot on earlier fixed reserve price of Rs.1455/- per sq.yards. Rather, the complainant can stack claim with respect to allotted alternative plot No.144-D in draw of lots on payment of the price as per terms and conditions of Ex.C6=Ex.R1 only. As the complainant himself deposited the amount of Rs.6,05,150/- as discussed above with a view to avail the benefit accrued to him in the draw of lots, in which, he remained successful by way of allotment of plot No.144-D and as such, direction for refund cannot be ordered in this case because the complainant himself not willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the offer put forth through Ex.C5. Deposit of amount of Rs.6,05,150/- was in pursuance of the letter Ex.C8=Ex.R1 and as such, virtually the complainant accepted the offer put forth through Ex.R1 by the Ops. As on deposit of the above said amount of Rs.6.05,150/-, the complainant virtually agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of Ex.R1=Ex.C8 and as such, now he cannot be allowed to fizzle out by way of repudiation of contract. 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. Recession of the contract arrived by the provisions of Indian Evidence 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 not tenable because of the decision given by the Hon’ble 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.