Present (1) Sri Nisha Natha Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)
President
(2) Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,
Member
Date of Order- 07.01.2015
ORDER
Nisha Nath Ojha and only) as litigation cost.
- The complainant approached this forum for following reliefs against Opposite Parties:-
- To give the possession as well as demarcating of land.
- To pay compensation for harassment
- In the complaint petition, the complainant has asserted following facts:-
- The complainant purchased the land of Sub Plot No.3, Block No. HB a part of survey Plot No. 192 with structure as delay neated on plot of the Society with all rights, title , interest and easement from the vendor the Ex –Secretary , Kanhaiya Mishra , Son of Late Kedar Nath Mishra, New Purandarpur , P.S- Phulwarisharif, Distt- Patna through Registered Sale Deed dated 01.09.1990.
- The land in question bearing Tauzi No. 131, Khata No. 133, Thana No. 26, Survey Plot No. 192, M.S Plot No. situated at Village- Jaganpura, P.S- Phulwarisharif, Distt- Patna was mutated by the complainant as per the Sale Deed dated 01.09.1990.
- After purchasing the aforesaid land the complainant reached for verification of the land in question executed in favour of the complainant but could not find out the land in question. Thereafter the complainant approached the Secretary (Opposite party no.2) stating therein that the land in question is not being find out therefore, it is requested that the land in question may be demarcated so that the complainant be able to construct the house on the land in question. Thereafter the Opposite party no.2 assured the complainant that other persons have approached with said problem and all plots with your plot shall be demarcated and after demarcating the land in question, the construction shall be made by the vendee (complainant).
- The complainant approached again and again to the Opposite party no.2 for demarcating the land in question, thereafter it was said by the Opposite party no.2 to have patience, the land in question will be demarcated but always the Opposite party no.2 failed to demarcate the land in question.
- The complainant again reached on the plot, find out the plot, but one person came to the plot in question and said my name is Shr Badan Singh, Son of Late Nag Narain Singh and I have purchased the land in question, thereafter the complainant asked to show the Sale Deed but the said person did not show the Sale Deed and did not point out the date of registration thereafter the complainant surprised to hear the matter and immediately approached the Opposite party no.2 on 02.08.2010 but the said Opposite party no.2 denied to execute the Sale Deed in favour of Shri Badan Singh and also stated that he does not know Shri Badan Singh and lastly the Opposite party no.2 was again requested and pressed to demarcate the land in question, but the Opposite party no.2 refused to demarcate the said land in question.
- Thereafter the complainant approached before the above said society and submitted complaint petition dated 12.08.2010 but the staff of the said society who was present in the society said to the complainant that the committee of society has been superseded and requested to move before the Administrator who is In-charge of the said society, thereafter the complainant mentioned the designation of administrator in place of the secretary and gave the application but the said person refused to receive the said application.
- It has been further asserted that when the complainant once came to the Plot in question then one Sri Badan Singh claimed the aforesaid land when this matter has been brought to the notice of the Opposite party no.2 then he denied to have executed any document in favour of the said Sri Badan Singh. Therefore the complainant requested the Opposite party no.2 to demarcate his plot in question then he did not redress his grievance.
- An Objection petition has been filed on behalf of the Opposite party no.2 stating therein that the case is barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any order for handing over possession of the plot because such type of order can be passed by civil court in suit for specific performance of Act.
- The Opposite party no.2 has not denied the existence of annexure -1 & 2 on behalf of the Opposite party no.1. A petition has been filed on behalf of the Opposite party no.1 (Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society) stating therein that he is in no way connected with the case and facts asserted from Para-1 to 7 of the complaint concern with the Opposite party no.2.
We have perused the record of this case.
It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased the Plot in question Vide Annexure-1 on 01.09.1990 from his Vendor i.e. Ex. Secretary of Shri Sankat Mochan Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd., New Purandarpur namely Shree Kanhaya Mishra. The complainant has asserted that the Opposite party no.2 did not demarcate the aforesaid Plot and hand over it possession to him. In the mean time once Shri Badan Singh claimed the aforesaid Plot and when the complainant approached the Opposite party no.2 in this regard then he denied to have executed any Sale Deed in favour of Shri Badan Singh. The grievance of the complainant is that despite his filing of complaint dated 12.08.2010 before the Opposite party no.2, his grievance has not redressed up till now. On behalf of the Opposite party no.2 an objection petition has been filed stating therein that the case is time barred as the cause of action arose on 01.09.1990. It has been further stated that there is no evidence to the fact that Shreenath Prasad Singh alias Shrinath Prasad is the same person. It has been further stated that the land in question is in the possession of the complainant. However, the registration of land as well as its mutation in question Vide Annexure-1 are admitted. The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the aforesaid objection petition denying the allegation of the Opposite parties. The Opposite party no.1 has asserted that he has no connection with the facts of the case.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also narrated the facts of this case in forgoing paragraphs even at the cost of repetition.
The Opposite party no.2 has admitted the registration of document Vide Annexure-I. The existence of Annexure-2 ( Mutation Receipt) has also not been denied by the Opposite party no.2. It is needles to pay that the complainant has filed several representations but his grievance has not been redressed. The complainant is fighting this litigation since 2010. The assertion of the Opposite party no.2 that the complainant has been given possession of the Plot in question registered and mutated Vide Annexure-1 & 2 is not worth believable because had the complainant got possession then he would not have filed this complaint petition.
It has been also submitted on behalf of the Opposite party no.2 that as this is case of specific performance, hence it is beyond the preview of Consumer Protection Act. In our opinion it is not the simple case of possession of Plot rather complainant is member of Co-operative Society which is registered under the relevant act. Hence every member of the registered Co-operative Society will deemed to be consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the failure of the Co-operative in demarcating the plot in question to the complainant and other members will be a deficiency under the act. The Opposite party no.1 has taken place of the Opposite party no.2 after supersession of Co-operative Society. Hence the Opposite party no.1 is also duty bound to perform the duty of the Opposite party no.2
It is needless to say that the Hon’ble Apex Court in citation reported in 2003(2) PLJR 61 State of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House building Coop. Society & others have been pleased to hold that the Forum has Jurisdiction to decide any deficiency committed by Co-operative Society.
Hence We direct the Opposite party no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally to demarcate the Plot in question in favour of the complainant which has been registered Vide Annexure-1 and mutated Vide Annexure-2 within a period of two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant will at liberty to take suitable legal remedy available as per law.
Thus this case is allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
