1.      Heard Mr. Rajat Gupta, Advocate, for the Jaipur Development Authority, Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocate for the Jaipur Nagar Nigam and Mr. Umesh Nagpal, Advocate for the respondents/complainants.

2.      On the death of Naresh Kumar Verma respondent 1/1, his legal heirs have filed IA/8339/2021 in FA/619/2015 and IA/8340/2021 in FA/1704/2016 for substituting them in the array of parties. IAs are allowed and their names are substituted.

3.      Both above appeals have been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 01.5.2015 passed in CC/53/2012 whereby the complaint has been allowed and the appellants were directed to handover possession of a plot admeasuring 266.66 sq. yards in their development scheme in Jaipur in coordination with each other and pay compensation of Rs.10/- lacs each of them to the complainant and litigation cost of Rs.25000/-.

4.      Rajesh Verma/respondent-1 filed CC/53/2012 for directing the opposite parties to handover possession of a developed plot admeasuring 266.66 sq. yards in any existing scheme and pay compensation of Rs.70/- lacs and litigation cost of Rs.50000/-.

 5.     The complainant stated that Jaipur Urban Improvement Trust developed a township of plotted colony in the name of Laxmi Narainpuri Scheme and invited applications for allotment of developed plot. The complainant applied for allotment of a plot in the above scheme. Jaipur Urban Improvement Trust vide allotment letter No.1012 dated 12.01.1970 allotted plot No.B-184 area 266.66 sq. yards in Laxmi Narainpuri Scheme. The complainant deposited the requisite amount vide receipt no.9533, book no.76 on 20.01.1970. Thereafter, the urban improvement trust asked for requisite stamp duty which was supplied and a least deed was executed of the above plot in favour of the complainant on 15.06.1970. However, on the spot there was some encroachment, therefore, the possession was not delivered to the complainant. The complainant wrote a letter to UIT, Jaipur in August, 1970 to deliver possession of the said plot after its measurement and demarcation on the spot. However, nothing was done. The complainant used to visit the office of UIT, Jaipur again and again but except some assurance nothing was done. In the meantime, Jaipur Development Authority has been constituted under Jaipur Urban Development Act, 1982. Jaipur Development Authority gave a public notice inviting applications from the aggrieved persons in respect of the housing development project initiated by UIT, Jaipur. In response to the advertisement of Jaipur Development Authority, the complainant gave an application for handing over the possession of plot no.B-184 area 266.66 sq. yards in Laxmi Narainpuri Scheme. Thereafter, personal hearing was held on 06.01.1977 in which all the papers including the lease deed were shown to the authority but nothing was done. Later on the complainant received a letter dated 23.03.1990 from Jaipur Development Authority requiring the complainant to give option for allotment of alternate plot of similar size in other scheme. In pursuance of the letter dated 23.03.1990 the complainant gave his option on 11.05.1990 for allotment of alternate plot of similar size in other development scheme. Thereafter the matter was pursued time to time but nothing was done. Later on, Jaipur Development Authority vide letter dated 12.07.1995 informed the complainant to approach Jaipur Nagar Nigam as the entire project of Laxmi Narainpuri Scheme has been handed over to Jaipur Nagar Nigam on 13.12.1992. The complainant thereafter approached Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Mahapor. When the complainant sought for information under Right to Information Act then the complainant was informed vide letter dated 20.05.2011 that scheme of Laxmi Naraipuri was under the jurisdiction of Commissioner, Planning, Nagar Nigam, Hawa Mahal Zone. Later on by another information dated 13.03.2012 the complainant was informed that the scheme of Laxmi Narainpuri was being looked after by Vidyadhar Nagar Zone. The complainant has been moving from Hawa Mahal Zone to Vidyadhar Nagar Zone but nothing was done. Ultimately, this complaint was filed on 27.08.2012.

6.      In spite of service of notice of the complaint, none of the opposite parties appeared before the State Commission nor filed their written reply. Therefore, the State Commission vide order dated 15.05.2013 proceeded ex-parte against them. Later one Mr. J.N. Vohra, Advocate appeared on 19.11.2013 on behalf of Jaipur Development Authority and sought time to file written reply but written reply was not filed. Simply Jaipur Development Authority has filed an application dated 14.02.2014 stating that the entire project of the scheme of Laxmi Narainpuri has been handed over to Nagar Nigam Jaipur, therefore, it has no liability. On subsequent date no one appeared for the opposite parties. Therefore, the State Commission after hearing the complainant vide impugned judgment dated 01.05.2015 held that the plot No. B-184 area 266.66 sq. yards was allotted to the complainant on 12.01.1970. Lease premium and other money has been deposited by the complainant on 20.01.1970 and thereafter lease deed was executed on 15.06.1970 in favour of the complainant. Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur could not hand over possession of the plot to the complainant in spite of continuous efforts made by the complainant. After constitution of Jaipur Development Authority, the entire project of Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur has been transferred to it. Although Jaipur Development Authority also vide letter dated 23.03.1990 required the complainant to give his option for alternate plot which was given to it on 11.05.1990 but possession has not been given to him. The complainant has approached all the authorities of Jaipur Development Authority as well as Nagar Nigam, Jaipur and also to the State Government, Rajasthan time to time but possession of the plot allotted to him or any alternate plot has not been delivered. On these findings, the complaint has been allowed and the order as stated above has been passed. Hence, these appeals have been filed.

7.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. Counsel for Jaipur Development Authority has taken a ground that Jaipur Development Authority has already transferred the project of Laxmi Narainpuri scheme alongwith other development projects to Nagar Nigam, Jaipur through letter dated 13.12.1992, therefore, Jaipur Development Authority has no liability towards the complainant and the impugned order against Jaipur Development Authority be set aside. He further stated that the land was allotted on 12.01.1970 and least deed was executed on 15.06.1970. Jaipur Development Authority was constituted only in the year 1982. The present complaint has been filed on 27.08.2012 which is highly time barred. Although Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribes two years limitation, therefore, this complaint was liable to be dismissed as time barred.

8.      So far as limitation is concerned, Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Construction Vs. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah, (2000) 1 SCC 586, Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) C.P.J. 12 (SC) and Samruddhi Co-operative House Society Limited Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC428, held that if the developer fails to perform its obligation as per agreement, then it is a continuing cause of action. Therefore, the argument of the appellant in this respect has no force.

9.      Jaipur Development Authority has relied upon the letter dated 13.12.1992 alleging that the project has been transferred to Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. A perusal of the letter shows that only all kinds of maintenance like road, drains, park etc. were handed over to Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. Apart from the right to maintain the essential services in the township and realising tax for it, Jaipur Development Authority has not transferred any other right. Therefore, the argument, based upon the letter dated 13.12.1990 is not sustainable. The entire project of Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur has been transferred to Jaipur Development Authority, therefore, Jaipur Development Authority is liable for handing over possession as well as paying compensation to the complainant in pursuance of his lease deed dated 15.06.1970.  Genuineness of the lease deed has not been disputed by the appellants.

10.    So far as FA/1704/2016 is concerned, since we have already found that under the letter dated 13.12.1990 only maintenance of roads, drains, park and other essential services have been transferred to Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, therefore, no direction can be issued to Nagar Nigam, Jaipur for providing alternate plot to the complainant in pursuance of lease deed dated 15.06.1970 and direction of State Commission in this respect is liable to be set aside.   

O R D E R

In the result, first appeal No.1704 of 2016 is allowed and it is held that Jaipur Nagar Nigam is not obliged to comply with the order of the State Commission dated 01.05.2015 passed in CC/53/2012. First appeal No.691 of 2015 is dismissed with cost of Rs.100000/- to be paid to the complainant/respondent.