DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 264 of 07.09.2007<br /> Decided on : 12-03-2008 <br /> <br /> Raj Kaur W/o Baldev Singh R/o Power House Road, Bathinda, through her General Power of Attorney and authorised person Tripat Pal Singh S/o Harpal Singh R/o Power House Road, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, Bathinda through its Additional Chief Administrator.<br /> 2.Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Sandeep Baghla, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D. Nayyar, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complainant has preferred this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') through her general attorney Tripat Pal Singh seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to provide all facilities of a corner plot with respect to plot No. 888-C situated at Urban Estate, Phase-III, Bathinda; refrain from divesting her of user of 10% extra land of plot No. 888-C measuring 125 Sq. Yards and further re-allotting this 10% extra land to any other person; pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Succinctly put the case of the complainant is that plot No. 888-C measuring 125 Sq. yards was previously allotted to one Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Ved Parkash. It was purchased by her vide sale deed No. 15599 dated 30.3.05 for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/-. Prior to the execution of sale deed, opposite parties had duly issued No Objection Certificate with respect of this plot to be sold in her favour. After sale deed was got executed by her From Ashok Kumar, she had applied for transferring it in her name vide letter dated 7.4.05. Opposite parties vide letter No. 3066-A dated 17.8.05 allowed the change of plot in her favour. Accordingly, she became allottee of the plot in the record of the opposite parties. At the time of seeking the applications for allotment of the plots at Phase-III, opposite parties have declared plot No. 888-C to be a corner plot. Even its allotment was made as of corner plot vide allotment letter No. 2410 dated 30.4.01. Amount was paid with respect to the price of the plot by considering it as a corner plot. Since 10% extra land adjoining the corner plot is allowed, allottee is charged 10% extra of the total price of the plot in respect thereof. Accordingly, opposite parties charged 10% extra. Sh. Ashok Kumar paid all the installments of the plot including its 10% extra price. After receiving total price, opposite parties had duly executed conveyance deed No. 14773 dated 14.3.05 in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar. Complainant has accordingly obtained title from Ashok Kumar. Subsequent to the execution of sale deed and transfer of the property in her favour, she also sought permission for raising construction. Site plan was duly approved vide letter No. 1032 dated 22.3.06. Accordingly, she has raised the construction. Vide memo No. 2518 dated 5.7.06 opposite parties raised an illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs. 16,797/- towards compounding charges by alleging violation of the site plan and Rs. 9,375/- towards non-construction charges which were paid under coercion vide demand draft No. 514104 dated 19.7.06. She has raised construction by treating her plot as a corner plot. Doors and windows have been opened towards 10% vacant extra land abutting the plot. Occupation Certificate was also issued to her. It is alleged by her that now with malafide intention to defy her valuable rights with respect to the plot, opposite parties are threatening to disallow her the user of 10% extra land of the corner plot and to deprive her of the facilities as a corner plot which is illegal, arbitrary and against statutory provisions of the Law. They are further threatening to re-allot 10% extra land to some other person. Their act and conduct has caused her great mental tension, agony and harassment.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant is not consumer; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and she is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct. They admit that plot No. 888-C was allotted to the original allottee. A sum of Rs. 7863/- was got deposited from her as extra payment of the corner plot. Subsequently re-planning of the area was done. It was found that there is piece of land lying adjacent to this plot. Since Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) now Bathinda Development Authority ( BDA ) had the right to make use of this land in any manner, the same was reserved for putting up a Milk Booth by District Town Planner, Bathinda. It has been decided to refund 10% extra payment so charged alongwith interest . Since complainant stepped into the shoes of the original allottee, refund alongwith interest would be made to her. Complainant wants to make unauthorised use of adjoining land. Memo No. 2518 dated 5.7.06 was issued to her demanding Rs. 16,797/- towards composition fee on account of illegal construction made by her on the plot against the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and site plan so approved and Rs. 9375/- towards non-construction fee for the year 2006. Complainant had voluntarily paid this amount without any protest. Land adjoining to the plot of the complainant is the sole and exclusive property of PUDA(now BDA). They are at liberty to make use of it in any manner. They admit that No Objection Certificate was issued in respect of the plot. Plot has been transferred in her name after getting the necessary formalities completed. She is not at liberty to use two lanes and opening of the windows and doors on two sides against the approved site plan. She wants to mess up the matter. It is averred by them that there is nothing illegal, arbitrary and against the statutory provisions on their part.<br /> 4. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence affidavit of his general attorney namely Tripat Pal Singh (Ex. C-1), photocopy of letter No. 3066-A (Ex. C-2), copy of account statement (Ex. C-3), photocopy of site plan (Ex. C-4), photocopy of allotment letter (Ex. C-5), copy of account statement (Ex. C-6), photocopy of Memo No. 10859 dated 20.10.03 (Ex. C-7), photocopy of memo dated 29.8.01 (Ex. C-8), photocopy of account statement (Ex. C-9), photocopy of power of attorney (Ex. C-10), photocopy of letter No. 3066-A (Ex. C-11), photocopy of letter dated 22.3.06 (Ex. C-12), photocopy of letter dated 5.7.06 (Ex. C-13), photocopy of demand draft dated 19.7.06 (Ex. C-14), photocopy of sale deed No. 7527 dated 30.3.05 (Ex. C-15), photographs (Ex. C-16 to Ex. C-22) and photocopies of site plans (Ex. C-23 to Ex. C-25).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Pirthi Singh, Dhaliwal, E.O. (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of allotment letter dated 30.4.01 (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.<br /> 7. Contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that as per approved plan shown by the District Town Planner and the approved site plan, plot in question has not been shown as corner. The land adjoining to the plot of the complainant is the sole and exclusive property of PUDA now BDA and they are at liberty to make use of it in any manner. Complainant is messing up the matter and wants to make unauthorised use of the land adjoining the plot.<br /> 8. Mr. Baghla, learned counsel for the complainant argued that 10% extra payment has been made on account of the fact that plot in question is a corner plot. Complainant is entitled to all the facilities of a corner plot. 10% extra land adjoining plot No. 888-C cannot be used by the opposite parties to her detriment nor can it be allotted to any other person to divest her of the user thereof.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 10. Admittedly plot No. 888-C is a corner plot. This fact has also been admitted by the opposite parties in para no. 5 on merits. 10% extra price for the plot has been paid. Complainant reiterates her version in the complaint through affidavit Ex. C-1 of Sh. Tripat Pal Singh. Complainant had purchased this plot No. 888-C from original allottee Sh. Ashok Kumar through sale deed dated 30.3.05 copy of which is Ex. C-15. Plot has been transferred by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant vide letter copy of which is Ex. C-2. As is evident from the copy of the site plan Ex. C-4 there is vacant land adjoining plot No. 888-C and Milk Booth has been shown at a sufficient distance from that site. Ex. R-2 is the copy of the allotment letter issued in favour of the original allottee i.e. Sh. Ashok Kumar. Through this letter they demanded 10% extra for corner plot. She had submitted plan for approval for raising the construction. It was accorded by the opposite parties vide letter dated 22.3.06, copy of which Ex. C-12. Construction has been raised by her. Through letter dated 5.7.06, copy of which is Ex. C-13, opposite parties demanded Rs. 16,797/- towards additional construction and Rs. 9375/- towards non-construction fee of 2006. This amount was deposited by her through demand draft copy of which is Ex. C-14. Once opposite parties have compounded the matter with her and have regularised the construction, they are estopped from saying that she cannot use the site adjoining her plot. Ex. C-23 to Ex. C-25 are the copies of site plans of corner plots no. C-526, C-624 and C-625. A perusal of them reveals that sun sheds have been allowed for these corner plots meaning thereby that facilities are allowed with the corner plots to the allottees. Ex. C-16 to Ex. C-18 are the photographs of the construction raised in plot No. 888-C. Ex. C-19 to Ex. C-22 are the photographs pertaining to construction in plots No. 1196, 1092, 1442 and 137 respectively. They show sun sheds and windows toward the vacant land abutting them i.e. lying with these corner plots. No approved plan of the District Town Planner has been produced to show that the plot in question is not a corner plot. Contention of the opposite parties is that re-planning of the area was done and it has been found that vacant piece of land is lying adjoining to plot No. 888-C and PUDA has the right to make use of the vacant land in any manner and that it was reserved for putting up a Milk Booth by District Town planner, Bathinda. No document has been placed and proved on record to show that the site abutting the plot of the complainant has been reserved for putting up a Milk Both. There is nothing to show re-planning of the area has been approved. No notice has been shown to have been issued to the complainant before alleged re-planning. There are provisions of law regarding variation of schemes and the rules concerning the manner of publication of notice of draft for variation in the scheme. Section 118 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning Development Act, 1995 pertains to the power of variation of schemes on grounds of error, irregularity and infirmity. Similarly Section 119 empower variation in schemes made for publication by means of notice and sanction in accordance with the Act. Rule 61 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning Development (General) Rules 1995 gives the manner of publication of the notice in case the draft variation in the scheme is prepared. Learned counsel for the opposite parties failed to show that re-planning has been done as per Act of 1995 and the Rules of 1995. Complainant cannot be condemned unheard. 10% extra payment has been received being a corner one. Complainant can make use of this plot as a corner plot. Opposite parties cannot wriggle out of the situation. Rather they are estopped from saying that complainant is making unauthorised use of the land adjoining the plot. They cannot deny the facility of corner plot to the complainant nor can they divest her of user of 10% extra land of the plot. Similarly they cannot re-allot this extra land to any other person. In case it is re-allotted to any other person and construction is raised in the land adjoining the plot in which she has raised construction, her right to light and air would stand jeopardised . Facts, circumstances and the evidence establish that the act and conduct of the opposite parties certainly amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.<br /> 11. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In our view, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to provide the facilities of the corner plot to the complainant with respect of plot No. 888-C and refrain from divesting her of the user of extra land of plot no. 888-C. Further direction should be that they should not re-allot it to any other person. She is also craving for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental tension and harassment etc., Since opposite parties have already received 10% extra payment on account of the fact that plot no. 888-C is a corner plot and they are bent upon denying the facilities of the corner plot and divesting of the user of the extra land abutting the plot and making a Milk Booth, their act and conduct must have caused her mental tension and harassment for which she deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 5,000/-.<br /> 12. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Provide all the facilities of corner plot to the complainant with respect to plot No. 888-C situated at Urban Estate, Phase-III, Bathinda.<br /> ii) Refrain from divesting her of user of 10% extra land of plot with respect to plot No. 888-C and further re-allotting it to any other person.<br /> iii) Pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation under section 14(1)(d) of the Act failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realisation.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 12-03-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member