Punjab

Sangrur

CC/350/2018

Vishal Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Committee - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vinay Kumar Jindal

30 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 350

 Instituted on:   27.08.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     30.08.2019

1. Vishal Garg son of Sh. Vijay Garg 2. Kamal Kumar S/o Om Parkash, 3. Darshan Kumar S/o Om Parkash, 4. Naveen Kumar S/o Krishan Chand, all residents of Mohalla Bhattan Wala, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainants  

                                                 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 complainants: 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 complainants filed this complaint pleading that the complainants purchased one plot measuring 186 square yards situated at backside Bus Stand, Sunam from Arun Kumar son of Dev Raj and Ritika Goyal W/o Arun Kumar on 9.11.2017 vide sale deeds number 2062 and 2063 and paid the entire sale consideration amount, as such the complainants are the owner and in possession of above said plot. Further case of the complainants is that to construct the plot in question the complainants 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.42,125/- to the OPs vide receipt number 18 book number 476 dated 11.4.2018 and the Ops registered the application of the complainants for sanction of site plan as construction case number 6 of 11.4.2018, but the grievance of the complainants is that the Ops failed to sanction the site plan of the complainants despite their repeated requests.  The complainants surprised when the complainants received a letter number 1112 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 complainants. 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 complainants 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 complainants will be passed and the complainants will be responsible for any type of fine, contempt of court and compensation etc.  Further case of the complainants is that after that they filed reply to above said letter number 1112 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 complainants is pending in any court and there is no stay or status quo order against the property of the complainants for which they have applied for sanction of site plan.  The complainants cleared the situation to the Ops vide their joint affidavit dated 9.7.2018 that the order of status quo of Additional District Judge, Sangrur was of dated 31.10.2014 and complainants had purchased the property on 9.11.2017.  As such, the complainants have prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to sanction the site plan in construction case no. 6 of 11.4.2018 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 complainants have purchased the plot and have 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 complainants 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 complainants, as such the Ops have not sanctioned the site plan of the complainants. The other allegations leveled against the Ops have been dismissed with special costs.

4.             The complainants have tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 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 complainants has contended that the complainants purchased one plot measuring 186 square yards situated at backside Bus Stand, Sunam from Arun Kumar son of Dev Raj and Ritika Goyal W/o Arun Kumar on 9.11.2017 vide sale deeds number 2062 and 2063 and paid the entire sale consideration amount, as such the complainants are the owner and in possession of above said plot. Further it is contended that the complainants in order to construct the plot in question they 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.42,125/- to the Ops vide receipt number 18 book number 476 dated 11.4.2018 and the Ops registered the application of the complainants for sanction of site plan as construction case number 6 of 11.4.2018, but the grievance of the complainants is that the Ops failed to sanction the site plan of the complainants despite their repeated requests.  The complainants surprised when the complainants received a letter number 1112 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 complainants, as such the site plan was not sanctioned on flimsy grounds, which is a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainants have applied for sanction of site plan by depositing the requisite fee of Rs.42,125/- with the Ops. 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 complainants 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 complainants, as such the Ops have not sanctioned the site plan of the complainants.

8.             It is proved on record that the complainants have applied for sanction of the site plan of the plot which was purchased by them on 09.11.2017 and deposited an amount of Rs.42,125/- with the Ops, as is evident from the copy of receipt on record as Ex.C-3 dated 11.4.2018.  The grievance of the complainants 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 complainants 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 complainants in the complaint have 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 complainants purchased the said plot in question vide sale deed dated 8.11.2017, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. Since, it is proved on record that the complainants purchased the plot in question on 8.11.2017 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 complainants on 11.4.2018 by depositing the requisite fee of Rs.42,125/- vide receipt Ex.C-3. 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 complainants 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 complainants are not in any way alienating his property but seeks sanction of site plan from the Ops regarding property which they have 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 complainants. 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 complainants, more so when the complainants have already deposited the amount of Rs.42,125/- for sanction of the site plan of the building.

 

9.     As such, the complainants have proved their case from the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and thus the opposite parties are directed to approve/sanction as per rules the site plan of the complainants. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainants 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