Punjab

Sangrur

CC/351/2018

Naveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Committee - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Davinder Sharda

30 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 351

 Instituted on:   27.08.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     30.08.2019

Naveen Garg son of Sh. Krishan Chand S/o Phool Chand now residing at B-7, #413, Mohalla Bathan Wala, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant  

                                                 Versus

1.     Municipal Committee, Sunam through its Executive Officer.

2.     Punjab Local Bodies Department, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh through its Director.

             ….Opposite parties. 

Counsel for the complainant : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.              

Counsel for the OPs              : Shri K.S.Bhutal, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER BY:     

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

1.             The complainant filed this complaint pleading that the complainant purchased one plot measuring 296 square yards from Meera Rani W/O Sh. Harish Kumar and Sh. Harish Kumar S/o Megh Raj, resident of Indra Marg, Sunam, vide sale deed number 1067 dated 24.8.2015 situated at Arora Colony, Sunam and paid the entire sale consideration amount, as such the complainant is the owner and in possession of above said plot. Further case of the complainant is that to construct the plot in question the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties for sanction of site plan for raising construction and submitted all the required documents along with site plan and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.15410/- to the Ops vide receipt number 84 book No.476 dated 4.5.2018 and Rs.19200/- vide cheque number 526047 dated 4.5.2018 and in this way a total amount of Rs.36,610/- was paid to the OPs and the Ops registered the application of the complainant for sanction of site plan as construction case number 24 of 4.5.2018, but the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops failed to sanction the site plan of the complainant despite his repeated requests.  The complainant surprised when the complainant received a letter number 1114 dated 4.6.2018 vide which the OP number 1 stated that the family dispute in the court of Sunam is pending with one Jiwan Kumar and the family of the complainant. The Op number 1 also stated in the above said letter that a civil suit number 205 of 2004 titled as Jiwan Garg vs. M/s.Garg Sweets is pending with regard to family dispute in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sunam and Jiwan Kumar has produced order dated 30.10.2014 of the Hon’ble Court vide which stay has been granted with regard to alienation of suit property. The Ops also asked the complainant to produce affidavits with the assurance that there will be no disobedience of stay order passed by Addl. District Judge, Sangrur, if the site plan of the complainant will be passed and the complainant will be responsible for any type of fine, contempt of court and compensation etc.  Further case of the complainant is that after that he filed reply to above said letter number 1114 dated 4.6.2018 through his counsel stating that the plot in question is not a part of civil suit property and no case with regard to property purchased by the complainant is pending in any court and there is no stay or status quo order against the property of the complainant for which he has applied for sanction of site plan.  The complainant cleared the situation to the Ops vide his affidavit dated 9.7.2018 that the order of status quo of Additional District Judge, Sangrur was of dated 31.10.2014 and complainant had purchased the property on 24.8.2015.  As such, the complainant have prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to sanction the site plan in construction case no. 24 of 4.5.2018 and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of agony and physical harassment and an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             After the notice being served upon the opposite parties, the opposite parties appeared through Advocate Shri K.S.Bhutal and filed written version. In written version taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint, that the complainant has not given any notice to Ops under section 49 of the Municipal Act; that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the opposite parties, as such the complaint should be dismissed with special costs of Rs.50,000/-. 

3.             On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the plot and has applied for sanction of site plan by depositing the requisite fee. But it is stated that one family member of the complainant Shri Jiwan Kumar has submitted an application to not to sanction the site plan of the complainant as a case is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur and the court has granted status quo dated 31.10.2014 qua the properties of the complainant, as such the Ops have not sanctioned the site plan of the complainant. The other allegations leveled against the Ops have been dismissed with special costs.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed evidence. The opposite parties have produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant purchased one plot measuring 296 square yards from Meera Rani W/O Sh. Harish Kumar and Sh. Harish Kumar S/o Megh Raj, resident of Indra Marg, Sunam, vide sale deed number 1067 dated 24.8.2015 situated at Arora Colony, Sunam and paid the entire sale consideration amount, as such the complainant is the owner and in possession of above said plot. Further case of the complainant is that to construct the plot in question the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties for sanction of site plan for raising construction and submitted all the required documents along with site plan and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.15410/- to the Ops vide receipt number 84 book No.476 dated 4.5.2018 and Rs.19200/- vide cheque number 526047 dated 4.5.2018 and in this way a total amount of Rs.36,610/- was paid to the OPs and the Ops registered the application of the complainant for sanction of site plan as construction case number 24 of 4.5.2018, but the Ops failed to sanction the site plan of the complainant despite his repeated requests.  The complainant surprised when the complainant received a letter number 1114 dated 4.6.2018 vide which the OP number 1 stated that the family dispute in the court of Sunam is pending with one Jiwan Kumar and the family of the complainant. The Op number 1 also stated in the above said letter that a civil suit number 205 of 2004 titled as Jiwan Garg vs. M/s.Garg Sweets is pending with regard to family dispute in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sunam and Jiwan Kumar has produced order dated 30.10.2014 of the Hon’ble Court vide which stay has been granted with regard to alienation of suit property. The Ops also asked the complainant to produce affidavits with the assurance that there will be no disobedience of stay order passed by Addl. District Judge, Sangrur, if the site plan of the complainant will be passed and the complainant will be responsible for any type of fine, contempt of court and compensation etc.  Further case of the complainant is that after that he filed reply to above said letter number 1114 dated 4.6.2018 through his counsel stating that the plot in question is not a part of civil suit property and no case with regard to property purchased by the complainant is pending in any court and there is no stay or status quo order against the property of the complainant for which he has applied for sanction of site plan.  The complainant cleared the situation to the Ops vide his affidavit dated 9.7.2018 that the order of status quo of Additional District Judge, Sangrur was of dated 31.10.2014 and complainant had purchased the property on 24.8.2015.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant has purchased the plot and has applied for sanction of site plan by depositing the requisite fee. But it is stated that one family member of the complainant Shri Jiwan Kumar has submitted an application to not to sanction the site plan of the complainant as a case is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur and the court has granted status quo dated 31.10.2014 qua the properties of the complainant, as such the Ops have not sanctioned the site plan of the complainant.

8.             It is proved on record that the complainant has applied for sanction of the site plan of the plot which was purchased by him on 24.8.2015 and deposited an amount of Rs.36,610/- with the Ops, as is evident from the copy of receipt and demand draft on record as Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 dated 4.5.2018.  The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops failed to sanction the site plan in question on flimsy grounds that one Jiwan Kumar of the family member of the complainant has taken status quo order dated 31.10.2014, as such the site plan could not be sanctioned/approved. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant in the complaint has stated that the order dated  31.10.2014 provides that the stay has been granted with regard to alienation of suit property, but the present property has no concern with the disputed property under order dated 31.10.2014. We are unable to go with this contention of the learned counsel for the Ops as it is on record that the complainant purchased the said plot in question vide sale deed dated 24.8.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. Since, it is proved on record that the complainant purchased the plot in question on 24.8.2015 and that the status quo order is dated 31.10.2014, as such the order dated 31.10.2014 is not applicable upon the opposite parties for not sanctioning the site plan applied for by the complainant on 4.5.2018 by depositing the requisite fee of Rs.36,610/- vide receipt Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4. We have also perused the written reply of the Ops filed on record wherein in para 2 it is mentioned that one Jiwan Kumar filed an application not to sanction/approve the site plan of the complainant and also produced the copy of status quo order, but the Ops have not produced the said copy of status quo order dated 31.10.2014 on record during the present proceedings. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not produce the same on record. Moreover, the Hon’ble Court has granted stay, if any for alienation of property as alleged by the Ops and in the present case the complainant is not in any way alienating his property but seeks sanction of site plan from the Ops regarding property which he has purchased on 24.8.2015 i.e. after stay, status quo, order alleged by the Ops. Hence, there is no intention of alienating or dispossessing the property by the complainant. As such, we feel that the Ops are not only deficient in service but have also indulged in unfair trade practice by not sanctioning the site plan of the complainant, more so when the complainant has already deposited the amount of Rs.36,610/- for sanction of the site plan of the building.

9.     As such, the complainant has proved his case from the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and thus the opposite parties are directed to approve/sanction as per rules the site plan of the complainant. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        August 30, 2019.

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)                (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

          Member                                        President