Haryana

Karnal

CC/125/2022

Nirmala Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Vinay Bansal

17 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 125 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt. 10.03.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:17.10.2023

 

Nirmala Devi wife of Joginder Singh son of Ram Kishan, resident of Mangal Colony (Sanjay Colony) Bajida Road, Karnal through GPA Shri Joginder Singh son of Ram Kishan son of Asha Ram, resident of Mangal Colony, Bajida Road, Karnal, age 53 years, UID no.3354 1499 6982.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Municipal Corporation, Karnal through its Commissioner/authorized person

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Vinay Bansal, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Bhanu Partap, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that present complaint is being filed through GPA who is none else but he husband of the complainant and he is fully conversant with the facts of the present case and duly authorized through GPA of act on behalf of the complainant. Sunita wife of Rajinder, Pinki wife of Inder, Jarnailo wife of Suresh, Sunita wife of Kuldeep son of Bahadur, Seema wife of Manoj son of Bahadur, all residents of house no.626, Jatton Gate, near Shambhunath Mandir, Karnal are relatives (from in-laws family) of the complainant. The complainant alongwith his abovesaid family members purchased the suit land fully shown in the site plan and marked as ABCD by way of registered sale deed no.14740 dated 24.01.2012, sale deed no.14741 dated 24.01.2012, sale deed no.14742 dated 24.01.2012, sale deed no.14742 dated 24.01.2012, sale deed no.14743 dated 24.01.2012 and sale deed no.14767 dated 25.1.2012. After the purchase of this land the parties to the suit decided to get the same partitioned by metes and bounds so that individual party be able to get the same used or constructed as per their choice and in this way oral partition was affected and the portion fully shown in red colour in the site plan and marked as ABEF came to the share of the complainant and remaining portion came in the share of abovesaid persons as fully shown in the site plan. The complainant after oral family partition between the family members got her portion constructed enabling her to keep her cattle heads, fodder and other house hold belongings. The complainant also applied for electricity connection and electricity connection was got installed by the OP in the premises so constructed by complainant in her portion. The complainant is regularly paying the electricity charges to the electricity department.

2.             It is further averred that OP was intimated about partition and they also verified the actual physical separate possession at the spot and oral family partition was duly recognized by the Municipal Corporation whereby they found the property of the complainant completely partitioned and duly constructed by the complainant and thus the separate specific property ID no.227C329U70 had been provided to the complainant with regard to her constructed building and the complainant is paying separate property tax of her separated property. Sunita etc. also admitted the oral family partition and they also got their specific property identified and shown separate in the Municipal record wherein the plot bearing property ID no.227C329U70A in the name of Sunita Devi wife of Rajinder, property bearing ID no.227C329U70-B in the name of Pinki wife of Inder, plot bearing property ID no.227C329U70-C in the name of Jarnailo wife of Suresh pot bearing property ID no.227C329U70-D in the name of Sunita wife of Kuldeep and plot bearing ID no.227C329U70-E in the name of Seema wife of Manoj are being shown recorded.

3.             It is further averred that complainant is paying more house tax as her property in question is constructed and the municipal corporation is receiving more property tax of the covered area from the complainant and less property tax from said Sunita etc. Thus, it is proved that the property in question was purchased by way of abovesaid sale deeds which has already been partitioned. The official of the OP are now hands in glove with the Suresh son of Ram Kishan who alleges himself to be Media Prabhari of BJP, and this Suresh Kumar (husband of above Jarnailo) had succeeded in changing the municipal ID of the property (by clubbing all the properties) bearing separate IDs in one and single ID bearing no.IEV529A9 626 Jarnailo Mangal Colony ward 006 Sanjay Colony Karnal. The complainant came to know this fact recently. The act of the OP is totally wrong because while preparing single property ID, the OP is showing its old property ID no.227C329U70, but admittedly the property ID no. 227C329U70 is separate ID of the exclusive property of the complainant and above other persons are having their separate properties IDs but by clubbing all these properties into one property and giving a joint property ID no.1EV529A9  to the entire property and mentioning the same in the name of Jarnailo is a wrong and fraudulent act of the OP and due to this act and conduct of the OP, complainant has suffered a loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to correct their records and to re-assess the same by again giving separate property ID number to the constructed residential house of the complainant and by again giving separate property IDs to the other properties holder name above, to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, men pain and agony and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses.  4.               On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that every property falling under the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Karnal is allotted a Unique Property ID (UPID) for the purpose of assessment of property in accordance with u/s 87 of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. Last survey of the properties falling under the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Karnal was conducted in the year 2012-13. The properties of the complainant was also surveyed and allotted UPIDs. A fresh survey is being conducted by Yashi Consulting Service Private Limited, Jaipur (YCSPL) which is still under progress. YSCPL has invited objections/claims from the general public which shall be removed by YCSPL before implementing the survey report. The corrected data/survey report has not yet been uploaded on pmsharyana.com portal for live steaming for the general public. Separate property IDs were allotted to the owners during the survey conducted in the year 2012-2013 which are still in existence as per details given below:-

Sr.no.	UPID	Name of owner/occupier	Area in sq. yards	Category	Demanded per annum in Rs.
1.	227C329U70	Nirmala Devi w/o Joginder Singh	563	Residential	2533
2.	227C329U70A	Sunita Devi w/o Rajinder	563	Vacant	422
3.	227C329U70B	Pinky w/o Inder	563	Vacant	422
4.	227C329U70C	Jarnailo w/o Sureh Kumar	563	Vacant	422
5.	227C329U70D	Sunita Devi w/o Kuldeep Singh	281	Vacant	105
6.	227C329U70E	Seema Rani w/o Manoj Kumar	281	Vacant	105

 

It is further pleaded that no notice required under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act has been served before filing the present complaint, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It is further pleaded that the complainant never submitted any compromise arrived between her family members/share holders in the property in the office of the OP. The complainant was allotted UPID no.227C329U70 over an area of 563 sq. yards during the survey conducted in the year 2012-2013. The complainant is under an obligation to pay the property tax under section 87 of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The property tax is determined by the OP as per category (use of the building premises) strictly in accordance with State Government Notification no.85/H.A.16/1994/S. 87/213 dated 11.10.2013. It is further pleaded that complainant should have approached YCSPL for filing objections, if any, for removal of her grievances. No intentional and deliberate act has been done by the OP to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

 

6              Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of site plan Ex.C1, copy of application to Municipal Corporation Ex.C2, copy of assessment year 2021-2022 in the name of Nirmala Ex.C3, copy of assessment year 2021-2022 in the name of Sunita Ex.C4, copy of assessment year 2021-2022 in the name of Pinky Ex.C5, copy of assessment year 2021-2022 in the name of Jarnailo Ex.C6, copy of assessment year 2021-2022 in the name of Sunita Ex.C7, copy of assessment year 2021-2022 in the name of Seema Rani Ex.C8, copy of online property detail Ex.C9, copy of GPA in the name of Joginder Singh Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 05.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ankush Prashar, Zonal Taxation Officer Ex.OP1/A, copy of assessment register Ex.OP1, copy of Municipal Corporation Act Ex.OP2, copy of notification dated 11.10.2013 Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 29.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant alongwith her family members purchased the suit land. On the mutual consent of the parties, the partitioned were done. Electricity connection was got installed by the OP in the premises so constructed by complainant in her portion. A separate property ID no.227C329U70 had been provided to the complainant by the OP with regard to her constructed building and the complainant is paying separate property tax of her separated property. The OP colluded with Suresh, husband of Jarnailo had succeeded in changing the municipal ID of the property by clubbing all the properties bearing separate IDs in one and single ID  was allotted. After knowing the said facts, complainant approached the OP and requested to correct their records and to re-assess the property and allotted separate property ID number to the constructed residential house of the complainant and also issued separate property IDs to the other properties holder, but OP did not heard the genuine request of complainant and prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the  OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the properties of the complainant was  surveyed and allotted UPIDs for the purpose of assessment of property. A fresh survey is being conducted by Yashi Consulting Service Private Limited, Jaipur (YCSPL) which is still under progress. YSCPL has invited objections/claims from the general public which shall be removed by YCSPL before implementing the survey report. The corrected data/survey report has not yet been uploaded on pmsharyana.com portal for live steaming for the general public. Separate property IDs were allotted to the owners during the survey conducted in the year 2012-2013 which are still in existence. If there is any grievance, the complainant should have approached YCSPL and filed objections, if any, for removal of her grievances, the present complaint is premature and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           In the present complaint, complainant has sought relief from the OP to correct their records and to re-assess the same by giving separate property ID number to the constructed residential house of the complainant.

12.           Complainant has alleged that she alongwith her family members purchased the land in the year of 2012 and after that oral family partition occurred between the family members. The intimation with regard to partition was given to the OP. Separate property ID no. 227C329U70 was allotted to her and complainant is paying the separate property tax. She further alleged that OP is now hands in glove with Suresh, husband of Jarnailo had succeeded in changing the Municipal ID of the property bearing separate IDs in one and single ID bearing no.IEV5 29A9. Due to that complainant is paying more property tax of the covered area.

13.           Last survey of the properties falling under the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation Karnal, was conducted in the year 2012-2013. The property of the complainant was also surveyed and allotted UPIDS. A fresh survey is being conducted by YASHI Consulting Service Private Limited, Jaipur (YCSPL) which is still under progress. YSCPL has invited objections/claims from the general public which shall be removed by YCSPL before implementing the survey report.

14.           Since the fresh survey is being conducted by YASHI Consulting Service Private Limited, Jaipur (YCSPL) which is still under progress. Complainant can file the objection before the said agency with regard to her grievances.

15.           In view of the above, we disposed off the present complaint with the liberty to the complainant to file objections before the YASHI Consulting Service Private Limited, Jaipur (YCSPL) within 15 days and on receipt of objections, YASHI Consulting Service Private Limited, Jaipur (YCSPL) to resolve the grievances of the complainant within one month. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:17.10.2023     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                        Member