Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/23/94

DINESH KUMAR SHAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAJDUUR PANCHAYAT HOUSING SOCIETY - Opp.Party(s)

PARAG KALE

08 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2023

(Arising out of order dated 05.12.2022 passed in C.C.No.1151/2010 by District Commission, Indore-1)

 

DINESH KUMAR.                                                                                           …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

MAJDOOR PANCHAYAT GRIH NIRMAN

SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT & ANOTHER.                                            …         RESPONDENT.                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                          :      MEMBER 

                              

                                      O R D E R

08.06.2023

 

          Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

                       

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This appeal arises out of the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.1151/2010 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable before it.

2.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that the appellant had paid the amount for purchase of a plot being a member of the first respondent society.  However, he was denied the plot on the ground that the land on which the plot was to be allotted was initially in scheme no.132 and thereafter was merged by the second respondent Indore Development Authority in the scheme no.171 therefore, same cannot be

-2-

allotted to the appellant by the respondents. 

3.                Alleging deficiency in service he had filed a complaint before the District Commission.  The District Commission without going into the other aspects involved in the mater in regard to the rights of the appellant and refund of the amount paid by him dismissed the complaint on the ground that it had no jurisdiction as the matter relates to Land Acquisition. 

4.                We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

5.                On going through the record we find that the District Commission has dismissed the complaint merely on the ground that the matter relates to Land Acquisition and therefore it has no jurisdiction.  In fact, the other aspects like refund of the amount and other entitlement has not been taken into consideration.

6.                In the circumstances, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the District Commission for deciding it afresh on merits in accordance with law. 

7.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 12.07.2023.

8.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.

 

 

-3-

9.                Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not come in way of the District Commission while deciding the matter.

 

           (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)             (Dr. Monika Malik)   

                         President                                       Member