DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.2125 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  23.10.2019                                              Date of decision   :  29.10.2019

Harbir Kaur wife of Makand Singh, resident of 2563, Phase-XI, Mohali (earlier living at Village Panaichan, Tehsil Samrala).

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Secretary Revenue and Rehabilitation, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh.

2.     Deputy Commissioner/Chief Sales Commissioner, District SAS Nagar.

3.     SDM/Sales Commissioner, Tehsil Kharar, Kharar.

4.     Tehsildar, Tehsil Kharar, Kharar.

                                                         ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Complainant  in person.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                Complainant was allotted plot No.66 measuring 15 marlas comprising in Khasra No.588 at Kharar in auction conducted on 27.05.1983 after acceptance of highest bid of Rs.10,250/-. Reserve price of this plot was Rs.9,375/-. This allotment was made under Punjab Package Deal and Property (Disposal) Act, 1976 by Tehsildar Sales, Hoshiarpur with camp office at Kharar. Earnest amount of Rs. 2,050/- was deposited on the spot vide receipt. Auction memorandum was also signed on the same date. Remaining balance amount of Rs.8,200/- was to be deposited in 19 six monthly installments.  Balance amount of Rs.8,200/- in lump sum was demanded by Tehsildar Sales vide letter dated 19.12.1983. Complainant approached Tehsildar Sales, Hoshiarpur office for deposit of requisite amount and got knowledge as if the said office has been closed permanently. Relevant records, as per information gathered by complainant, was shifted to OP No.4 office and that is why complainant approached OP No.4 many times for deposit of said amount of Rs.8,200/-. Despite sending of applications to Hon’ble Chief Minister of Punjab and getting information under RTI Act, nothing done and that is why this complaint for seeking possession of the plot and directing OPs to execute conveyance deed after receipt of balance sale consideration amount. Compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/- more claimed.

2.             Arguments for admission purpose heard and records gone through.

3.             It is pleaded case of complainant that plot in question was allotted to her by Tehsildar Sales, Hoshiarpur with Camp Office at Kharar on 27.05.1983 after accepting highest bid of Rs.10,250/-. Being so, case of complainant is covered by provisions of Punjab Package Deal and Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. Section 4 of this Act provides that Tehsildar Sales or Naib Tehsildar Sales may transfer the package deal property by sale by public auction and as such the sale in favour of complainant in public auction took place after exercise of powers under Section 4 of the above referred Act by the competent authority namely Tehsildar Sales. 

4.             Now complainant wants that the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,200/- should be accepted from her by Tehsildar Sales and he should execute the conveyance deed in her favour. Section 7 of the above said Act provides that Tehsildar Sales or Naib Tehsildar Sales may cancel any transfer or terminate any lease or amend the terms of any transfer or lease under which any package deal property is held or occupied by a person. Section 4 (2) of the above said Act empowers Tehsildar Sales or Naib Tehsildar Sales to transfer any package deal property in the name of any individual or individuals. Section 4 (3) of the above said Act provides that Tehsildar Sales or Naib Tehsildar Sales to be deemed as Revenue Officers within meaning of Section 89 (4) of Registration Act 1908.  So overall reading of Section 4 provides that transfer of package deal property to be done by Tehsildar Sales and he being the Revenue Officer to register the conveyance deed/sale deed in favour of the highest bidder. As the power of variation or cancellation or transfer of package deal property vests in the Tehsildar Sales and as such competent authority for granting relief in question namely execution and registration of sale deed or of acceptance of balance sale consideration amount is Tehsildar Sales.  In case any person is aggrieved by orders of Tehsildar Sales or Naib Tehsildar Sales, then he can prefer appeal to the Sales Commissioner under Section 8 of the above said Act and further to the Chief Sales Commissioner as per Section 9 of the above said Act. Besides power of revision vests in Chief Sales Commissioner as per section 10 of the above said Act. Section 16 of the above said Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter, which the State Govt. or any officer or authority competent under the Act, is empowered to do or is empowered to determine the controversy. Civil Court is debarred under Section 16 of the above said Act for issuing any injunction or take any action in respect of the matters regarding which cognizance to be taken by authorities under the Package Deal Property Disposal Act. Section 17 of this Act further provides that no suit or other legal proceedings will lie against the State Govt. or any authorities competent under this Act in respect of anything, which is in good faith done or intended to be done, in pursuance of provisions of the above said Act.  So in view of bar of Section 16 and protection provided by Section 17, this consumer complaint is not maintainable against the authorities constituted under the above said Act. As relief through this complaint sought with respect to the matters governed by provisions of the above said Act, and as such certainly this consumer complaint is not maintainable. None of the OPs rendered services within meaning of Section 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act and as such this complaint is certainly not maintainable. Ratio of case of Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Municipal Corporation Bathinda & another, bearing First Appeal No.1261 of 2011 decided on 19.11.2013 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh  lays that authorities like Municipal Corporations, if discharges functions under the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act or the rules framed thereunder, then they are not rendering services as defined under the Consumer Protection Act because quid pro quo for the consideration is missing in such cases. Function of OPs in this case is identical to the function of sanction of building plan for construction purposes and as such ratio of above cited case fully applicable to the present case, due to which this complaint is not maintainable because OPs cannot be treated as service provider within meaning of Consumer Protection Act. Complainant, if advised, may approach the appropriate court/Forum for redressal of grievance.

4.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage, but with the observation that complainant may approach the appropriate court/Forum for redressal of her grievance, as per law only. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

October 29, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member