Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

Today no one is present. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31/10/2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nasik below the application dated 14/7/2009 in Execution application no.20/2008. It appears that the application filed by the complainant was rejected and, therefore, this revision. 

Complainant initially had filed complaint no.127/2006. It was decided on 15/9/2006 by the District Consumer Forum, Nasik.  By the said order it was directed that as per terms and conditions of the agreement for the deficiency in service and for mental harassment the opponents shall pay Rs.25,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt.  Within 30 days deficiencies in work shall be completed and if it is not completed, the opponent shall pay Rs.75,000/- within 60 days from the date of the order. It is further directed that if the said directions were not complied, interest @ 8% p.a. be paid from 01/11/2006 on Rs.25,000/-, so also interest @ 8% p.a. be paid on Rs.1 lakh from 01/12/2006. Thereafter, it appears that the composite application appears to have been filed being execution application no.20/2010. In the said application it appears that on 14/7/2009 the application was given by the complainant under section 25(3). It is stated in the said application that said execution application has been kept today to file fresh application under section 25(3) and, therefore, application was submitted.

In the said application it has been prayed that certificate be issued in respect of the order passed on 15/9/2006 for recovery of the amount namely it was prayed that certificate be issued in respect of amount of Rs.25,000/- with an interest from 01/11/2006 and a certificate in respect of Rs.75,000/- with an interest @ 8% p.a. from 01/12/2006 be granted. Thus, it appears that the certificate was claimed in respect of Rs.1,15,500/- after making the above prayer (A).  There was another prayer made namely prayer (B).  In the prayer (B) revision petitioner/original complainant prayed that the plot nos.45 & 46 from the City Survey no.158/D situated within Igatpuri Nagarparishad area be attached and sold, since it is property with the opponent given on lease by the Government.  Auction in respect of said property was also sought by the complainant. This application was considered and it was observed that the plot nos.45 & 46 of City Survey no.158/D is a property given on 99 years lease by the Government to the opponent and he is not an owner of the said property and, therefore, it cannot be attached and sold in auction. What we find that in fact revision petitioner should not have made this prayer in an application under section 25(3).  In an application 25(3) complainant is expected to claim only recovery certificate, so that Collector can recover these amounts as arrears of land revenue.  For recovery of the said amount what property is to be attached and what are the steps to be taken is a matter to be considered by the Collector, when the certificate is produced before the Collector. Land revenue Code provides procedure in respect of attachment of the property, objections to be heard in this respect and auction to be carried out by the Revenue officers.  That is not the jurisdiction and power of the District Consumer Forum.  District Consumer Forum while considering application under section 25(3) has to see whether there is order passed by the District Consumer Forum directing recovery of the amount from the opponent. If the District Consumer Forum finds that there is direction for recovery of the amount from the opponent then District Consumer Forum shall issue notice to the opponent and after ascertaining from the opponent whether he has paid the amount, if District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum finds that the opponent has not paid the amount, then District Consumer Forum shall issue recovery certificate under section 25(3) in favour of complainant.  That is simple procedure which District Consumer Forum has to follow.  After receipt of said certificate complainant will go to the Collector and Collector thereafter will take steps as required under the Land Revenue Court. Therefore, the procedure which is being followed by the complainant namely to get the property attached in a proceeding under section 25(3) is misconceived one. What we find that whether property is available for sale or not available is a question to be considered by the Collector. Therefore, ultimately even though prayer has been rejected, we find that it has been rejected properly.  But what we find that the application to the extent of grant of certificate under section 25(3) should have been considered by the District Consumer Forum.  Therefore, even though we find that order in respect of rejection of clause (B) is justifiable one, order in respect of non issuance of certificate prayer clause (A) is not justifiable.  Therefore, we partly allow the revision petition.  It is hereby directed that District Consumer Forum, Nasik shall issue certificate in respect of prayer clause (A) of the application dated 14/7/2009 so that complainant can recover said amount. So far as prayer clause (B) of the application dated 14/7/2009 is concerned, it is rejected.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.