Haryana

StateCommission

RP/115/2018

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK MANCHANDA

22 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Revision Petition No.115 of  2018

Date of the Institution:           24.07.2018

Date of Decision: 22.11.2018

 

 The Municipal Corporiation, Ambala through Joint Commissioner.

                                                                             .….Petitioner

Versus

 

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Kishori Lal, since deceased now through his legal heirs:-

 

1. Meenakshi Jindal (widow)
2. Varun Jindal, (son)
3. Sahil Jindal (son)
4. Abhishek Jindal, (son) permanent R/o H.No.214/4, Sharshtri Nagar, Mandi Govindgarh distt Patiala at present R/o H.No.420, Sohi Street college Road, Ludhiana (PB).

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

                    Mr.Nitin Sood, Advocate for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present revision  petition are as such, present  revisionist has filed complaint before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”), which was allowed. The execution filed by the DH-complainant  for implementation of the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by this learned District Forum had passed the order dated  29.05.2018, which is as under:-

“This forum is of the opinion that if the said plot is given to the DH which does not mean that any modification contrary to the original order passed by this Forum dated 17.05.2007 has been made rather in order to set the controversy at rest this forum has passed this order that the alleged plot be given to the DH and the objections filed by JD are hereby dismissed being not maintainable. The JD is directed to give the physical possession of the plot No.221 measuring 354 sq. yards at Palika Vihar, Ambala city on completing the formalities by the complainant. To come up on 14.06.2018 for report.”

3.      Feeling aggrieved thereof, O.P.-JD has filed the present revision petition with a specific plea that impugned order dated 29.05.2018 be quashed and the DH be directed to accept the payment deposited with this Court with interest as no alternative plot is vacant.

4.      The notice of the revision petition was issued against the O.ps.  Since the O.Ps. was duly served now represented in this Commission by their counsel.  After putting appearance before this Commission, the arguments advanced by Sh. Deepak Manchanda,  the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sh.Nitin Sood  the learned counsel for the respondent.  With their kind assistance the entire record of the District Forum as well as the revision petition has also been properly perused and examined.

5.      The basic and foremost question arises for adjudication of the present revision petition is as to whether the impugned order dated  29.05.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Ambala is legally sustainable or not?

6.      Still unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Sh.Deepak Manchanda, the learned counsel for the revisionist that in fact no plot as has been  alleged by the other party is available and it was only on the statement of clerical cadre official.  It was observed  that the plot No.221 bearing Khasra No.325 situated at Palika Vihar, Ambala measuring 354 sq. yards is available.

7.                Contrary to it, in order to rebut the contention on behalf of the revisionist the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to an application dated 19.01.2017 which was addressed to the Sub Registrar, Ambala and it was referred to the Municipal Council, Ambala for conducting the demarcation and while preparing the demarcation report dated 03.02.2017 it has been categorically observed that in Khasra No.325, plot No.221 situated in the area of Palika Vihar Ambala is lying vacant.  The dimension of the plot has also been mentioned and the total area of the plot in question is 354 sq. yards.  It is basically an intention of the present revisionist to conceal the material facts with further malafide intention not to deliver the possession of the plot No.221, whereas actual plot for which, the decree holder or who is a Respondent here was entitled for a plot of more than 400 sq. yard, but, still he is agreed to take the possession of a plot of a lesser area.

8.                Hence with the above observation and discussion, the revision petition is devoid of merits stands dismissed.  However the order passed by the learned district Forum, Ambala vide order dated 29.05.2018 is maintained for all intents and purpose. In fact the present revisionist is directed to deliver the possession of the plot No.221 which is lying vacant comprising in khasra No.325, measuring 354 sq. yards situated in the area of Palika Vihar, Ambala City  within the period of one month positively  from the date of passing this order. It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 27 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

 

 

November 22nd, 2018

Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.