Punjab

StateCommission

CC/89/2013

Harbans Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and anr. - Opp.Party(s)

Manninderpreet Kaur & Amarbir Singh Salar

19 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                                       FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

                                                         

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No.89 of 2013.

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution:    02.09.2013.

                                                          Date of Decision:     19.01.2015.

 

Harbans Kaur D/o Tej Kaur and W/o Prithipal Singh, R/o H.No.6550, 128^th Street Surrey, British Colombia, Canada through her attorney Sh. Tarsem Lal S/o Sh. Bawa, R/o  Badowal, Jail Road, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

                                                          …..Complainant

 

                                      Versus 

 

 

1.       State of Punjab, through Secretary, Local Self Govt., Punjab,     Chandigarh.

 

2.       Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its Chairman.

 

                                                          …Opposite Parties.

 

Consumer Complaint U/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:-

 

                    Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member.

                   Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.                        

                   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Present

          For the complainant:        Sh. S.S. Salar, Advocate.

          For opposite party No.1:  Exparte.

          For opposite party No.2:  Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate.

         

 

BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER:-

 

 

                    Smt. Harbans Kaur, complainant (hereinafter called “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint U/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (in short, “the OPs”), for directing them to allot her a suitable plot of 500 sq.yds. in “Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Development Scheme”, Ludhiana for which her land was acquired under the category of “Locally Displaced Person”.

2.           Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant was owner of land measuring 650 sq.yds. bearing Khasra No.590 (17-15) at village Jawaddi, vide Jamabandi for the year 1983-84. The opposite parties formulated a scheme, known as “Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Development Scheme” (in short “the Scheme”) and the land of the complainant was acquired vide Award passed on the basis of Notification U/s 36 on 02.07.1976 and Notification U/s 42 was published on 28.06.1979. The possession of the said land was taken by opposite party No.2 and the mutation was effected in the name of opposite party No.2-Trust.
3.                    At the time of acquisition proceeding, Rules 1975 were applicable and in 1983, new rules were framed and the old Rules of 1975 were repealed. According to Rules of 1975, prevalent at the relevant time, the complainant was entitled for allotment of a plot. Vide letter dated 19.05.2006, the Govt. of Punjab decided to direct the opposite party-Trust to consider all the cases of Local Displaced Persons [in short “LDP(s)]. Opposite party No.2, instead of considering the cases of LDPs, has been allotting the plots to other persons, who were not eligible as per rules. OP-2 was, thus, found deficient in service, in not considering the claim of the complainant and other LDPs. The complainant requested the opposite party-Trust to consider her case in view of the letter of the Govt. dated 19.05.2006, but the opposite party-Trust failed to perform its statutory duty under the rules, duly framed under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922. Similarly situated persons earlier filed the complaints which were allowed and the opposite party-Trust was directed to consider their cases.
4.           The complainant on 21.07.2012 visited the office of opposite party-Trust and found that the opposite parties, of their own, allotted plots to the persons mentioned in Para-27 of the complaint. The complainant also requested the Trust to consider her case vide representation dated 27.09.2012, but the same was not considered.
5.           The complainant moved an application along with affidavit and deposited the earnest money as required under the rules vide receipt no.34992 on 30.06.1982, but no allotment has been made. The complainant again deposited Rs.1,000/- vide receipt dated 30.06.1982. After depositing of the earnest money, necessary proceedings were initiated by opposite party no.2 and a number of plots were lying un-allotted in the category of LDPs and a public notice was published in ‘The Tribune’ asking the LDPs to appear.  The complainant on 26.11.1992 appeared before the Trust and requested for allotment of the plot. The claim of the complainant was verified and the Chairman of the opposite party no.2-Trust told the complainant that a plot was being allotted to her, but thereafter, nothing was done. Again in 1998, public notices were inserted in the newspaper and the complainant again appeared and made a request for allotment of the plot, by producing necessary documents on 16.11.1998.
6.                    The opposite party-Trust later on asked the complainant to submit an affidavit and indemnity bond as per the specimen within four days from the receipt of the letter and in case the requisite documents are not furnished, it will be presumed that the complainant is not interested in allotment of the plot. The complainant submitted the documents as per the directions of the Trust and again made requests to allot the plot on 10.08.1999 and 31.12.1999, but nothing was done.  The complainant again made a representation to the Trust in response to the public notice dated 28.03.2000 in the ‘Daily Ajit’ to allot a plot, but nothing was done. The complainant being a Local Displaced Person is entitled to one plot as per 1975 Rules and the Rules of 1983 are not applicable.
7.           The various writ petitions were filed in the Hon’ble High Court and those were disposed of in terms of the orders passed in CWC No.373 of 2003. The case was directed to be decided by the Committee. The Committee took up the cases, but the case of the complainant was not taken up and a disrespect was shown to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court. The Committee mis-interpreted the rules. The Local Displaced Persons asserted that as their land was acquired for setting up the development scheme, so they are entitled to the plot under the 1975 Rules. The writ petitions as well as the complaints were filed in this Commission.        Even though the State of Punjab issued directions to the Trust to consider the cases of the Local Displaced Persons vide letter dated 19.05.2006, yet the cases of the complainant and others were not considered. The complainant was deprived of the plot for years together with malafide intention. Presently, plots 30-C, 444-F and 716-F are lying vacant under the scheme, but the same are not being allotted. The various other persons have been allotted the plots. The Hon’ble High Court directed the Trust to consider the cases of writ petitioners for allotment of plots. The complainant also made a representation, but the Trust and others did not consider the same. Had the plot been allotted in the year 1983, the cost of construction would have been Rs.5.00 lacs at the maximum, but now the cost of construction for 500 sq.yds. plot is not less than Rs.30.00 lacs and the complainant is to be compensated in the sum of Rs.25.00 lacs on account of escalation of constructions prices and Rs.14.00 lacs on account of escalation of sale price  as the reserve price of the plot is not less than Rs.3,000/- per sq.yd., whereas it was only Rs.200/- per sq.yd. in the year 1985. The complainant suffered a lot of mental tension and harassment and is entitled to compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs. It was prayed that the opposite party Trust may be directed to allot a suitable plot of the area measuring 500 sq.yds. in the scheme for which the land was acquired on reserve sale price calculated as per rules, or in other equally developed scheme of the Trust, if the plots are not available in the said scheme. Compensation of Rs.44.00 lacs may be awarded along with interest from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
8.           Opposite Party No.1 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.12.2013.
9.           Upon notice, opposite party no.2-Trust filed written reply, taking preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by time. As per the case set up by the complainant, she was the owner of land measuring 650 sq.yds. which was acquired by the Trust for implementation of 475 Acres Scheme known as “Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Development Scheme’ vide notification u/s 36 of the Act on 02.07.1976 and another notification u/s 45 of the Act dated 28.06.1979 was issued. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was deposited by her on 30.06.1982 i.e. after about six years  of the issuance of the notification u/s 36 of the Act and the present complaint, filed on 19.12.2012, is hopelessly time barred.
10.           The State of Punjab formulated the Punjab Improvement Trust (Utilization of Land & Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 which came into force w.e.f. 22.12.1983 and according to these rules, the Local Displaced Persons shall be allotted a residential plot on reserve sale price in accordance with the criteria mentioned therein, provided he applies for such allotment in Form-A within a period of three years from the date of taking over the possession of land acquired by the Trust. The complainant has not submitted the application within the stipulated period.  The land owned by the complainant was less than half acre and, as such, she was entitled for allotment of any plot as LDP.
11.           The present complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant has prayed for allotment of plot measuring 500 sq.yds. and compensation of Rs.44.00 lacs. The said claim is highly exaggerated just to bring the complaint within jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant has deposited only a sum of Rs.1,000/- and the compensation cannot exceed the amount deposited or to be refunded. The complainant has alleged a number of documents in the shape of letters, public notices and other documents and wants to examine the witnesses and the complaint is liable to be referred to the civil court. The complaint is false and frivolous and is barred by time and is not maintainable. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
12.           On merits, it was submitted that as per the record of the Trust, the land measuring 17 Kanals 13 Marlas bearing Khasra No.590 was owned by Smt. Jagir daughter of Smt. Ind Kaur widow of Sh. Ram Chand to the extent of 1/2 share and Smt. Kirpal Singh and Hardeep Singh to the extent of 10/24 share each and Smt. Sikandar Kaur and Harbans Kaur, daughters of Tej Kaur to the extent of 2/24 share each. It was admitted that in order to develop the area, the opposite party-Trust formulated the scheme and the same was acquired. The possession of the land was taken by the opposite party-Trust on 17.12.1985 and the mutation was entered in the name of the Trust. Other similar pleas as raised in the preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
13.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-A and Ex.C-19 along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22 and closed the evidence.
14.           Learned counsel for opposite party No.2-Trust tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Paramjit Singh, Executive Officer of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana as Ex.OP-A and closed the evidence.
15.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
16.           It is not disputed that opposite party-Trust formulated a scheme known as ‘Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Development Scheme” and the complainant moved application on 30.06.1982 for allotment of the plot as Local Displaced Person (LDP) in the said scheme. The complainant deposited the earnest money of Rs.1,000/- for the allotment vide receipt Ex.C-2 dated 30.06.1982. Vide letter Ex.C-3 dated 06.11.1992, the Chairman of the opposite party-Trust asked the complainant to appear before him along with the documents. The opposite party-Trust again issued a public notice in ‘Punjab Kesri, Jalandhar’ dated 03.01.1998 Ex.C-4 asking the Local Displaced Persons to appear in the office of the opposite party-Trust along with documents. Another public notice Ex.C5 dated 28.03.2000 was published.  Ex.C-10 is the order of the Hon’ble High Court, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.5171 of 2009 vide which the said writ petition filed by the opposite party-rust was dismissed.
17.           The plea of opposite party no.2 Trust is that the land measuring 17 Kanals 13 Marlas bearing Khasra No.590 was owned by Smt. Jagir daughter of Smt. Ind Kaur widow of Sh. Ram Chand to the extent of 1/2 share and Smt. Kirpal Singh and Hardeep Singh to the extent of 10/24 share each and Smt. Sikandar Kaur and Harbans Kaur, daughters of Tej Kaur to the extent of 2/24 share each, but this plea of the Trust is not tenable because way back on 30.06.1982, the complainant moved the application for allotment of plot as “Local Displaced Person” and earnest money of Rs.1,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 30.06.1982 vide receipt Ex.C-2 and till date, no order has been passed by the opposite party-Trust, rejecting the application on the grounds that the complainant is not the Local Displaced Person (LDP). The land was acquired under the Scheme vide notifications dated 20.07.1976 and 28.06.1979 and at that time, the Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 were applicable (hereinafter called “Rules 1975”) and under these rules, the Local Displaced Person is defined U/s 2 (b) as follows:-

 

          “Local Displaced Person

          means a person whose land has been acquired by the Trust for the execution of any scheme under the Punjab Town    Improvement Act, 1922.”

 

18.           The Chairman of the opposite party-Trust vide letter Ex.C-3 dated 06.11.1992 asked the complainant to appear before him with original documents alongwith duly attested affidavit within 15 days from the receipt of said letter and as per version of the complainant, she appeared alongwith the documents and she was assured that the plot will be allotted, but nothing was done. The opposite party-Trust has not placed on record any document to show that due to non-appearance of the complainant, her claim was waived of for the allotment of the plot as LDP. The opposite party-Trust issued a public notice in newspaper ‘Punjab Kesri’, Jalandhar on 03.01.1998, giving notice to general public and particularly to the claimants, who have applied for the allotment of plot as LDP and they were asked to appear on 7^th or 9^th or 16^th of January, 1998 alongwith all documents and the complainant appeared, but no action was taken. Again, there is no order of the opposite party-Trust to prove that the complainant did not appear and due to non-appearance of the complainant, her claim was waived of for the allotment of the plot as LDP. The opposite party-Trust issued another public notice Ex.C-5 in newspaper “Ajit” on 28.03.2000 to the same effect.
19.           The opposite party-Trust was adopting a pick and choose method in allotting the plots and a large number of writ petitions in the Hon’ble High Court were filed and in Civil Writ Petition No.5171 of 2009 filed by the opposite party-Trust against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, this Commission and one Nachhattar Singh, the Hon’ble High Court relying upon a number of its own decisions, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the applications, even time barred, could be entertained. The Govt. of Punjab, Department of Local Govt. issued guidelines vide letter Ex.C-11 dated 19.05.2006 for disposal of pending applications received under LDP category for allotment of plot, to all the Improvement Trusts of the State of Punjab and directed that all pending applications be dealt with as per the following guidelines:-

 

          a)       In those Trusts where there were no statutory rules to deal                  with the applications received under the LPD category prior                    to the enforcement of Utilization of land and allotment of                 plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, the applications                    shall be decided as per the provisions of Utilization of land                   and allotment of plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975.              However, if the concerned Trust had duly framed and          

                   notified its own rules in this respect, the applications shall                   be considered and disposed of strictly as per those rules.

          b)       Applications received from 22.12.1983 onwards are to be           considered and disposed of under the Punjab Improvement             Trust (Utilization of lands and allotment of plots) Rules,                             1983.

          c)       Applications which are ultimately rejected, a well-reasoned                  and speaking order, mentioning the grounds of rejection, is                   required to be passed in each case and a copy thereof has             to be sent to the applicant as per registered post at his                        address given in the application. In the event the registered                 post is received unserved, intimation is required to be                     given by publishing a public notice in the newspaper widely            read in the area.”

20. Vide letters Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-13, directions were issued in cases of various LDPs by the State of Punjab, directing the opposite party-Trust, to do the needful and to allot the plots. Ex.C-12 and Ex.C13 are the orders of the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Local Govt., whereby other LDPs were ordered to be given the plots. Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-17 are the other orders of the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Local Govt.
21.                    As stated above, the large number of LDPs have been knocking the door of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as this Commission. A number of Local Displaced Persons filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1603 of 2012 “Monti Roy Vs State of Punjab. & Anr.” and other Civil Writ Petitions which were clubbed together and decided by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 8^th October, 2012 and the Hon’ble High Court observed as follows:-

 

          “Adverting to other group of petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.4200, 6356,       8190, 8229 and 9470 of 2012, their claims have been turned          down only on the ground that they did not apply along with    earnest money within the prescribed period.

          This court in LPA No.821 of 2012 (Improvement Trust, Ludhiana          Vs Joginder Singh and others) decided on August 30, 2012, held      as follows:-

          “The only question whether a Local Displaced Person can be     denied allotment of the plot on the ground of delay in approaching the appellant-Improvement Trust, has been gone    into and answered in favour of the Local Displaced Persons by two Division Benches of this Court in CWP No.6801 of 2000 (Surjit    Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), decided on 2.11.2000    and CWP No.17248 of 1999 (Gurdev Kaur & Ors. Vs State of           Punjab & Anr.) decided on 25.04.2001 (Annexures P-13 and P-  14 respectively). That apart, the private respondents have           successfully proved on record that other Local Displaced           Persons, who too deposited earnest money with them in the year   1990, have been allotted plots vide orders of different dates           (Annexures P-18 to P-39).”

          The delay caused in approaching the Improvement Trust thus    should not work to the disadvantage of LDP if he is otherwise          entitled to allotment of a plot under the Rules, for no serious        prejudice is likely to be caused to the Trust, as the petitioner(s)           would be entitled to allotment at the current reserved price only.”

 

22.               Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the order of this Commission passed in Consumer Complaint No.117 of 2012 decided on 27.01.2014 titled as “Rajinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.”, whereby four Consumer Complaints were decided.

23.               To rebut the evidence led by the complainant, the opposite party-Trust has tendered the affidavit of its Executive Officer Ex.OP-A only. Perusal of this affidavit shows that this is nothing, but the attested copy of the written statement.

24.               From the above discussion, it is clear that the complainant vide receipt Ex.C-2 deposited the earnest money of Rs.1,000/- way back in the year 1982, but till date she has not been allotted the plot. The application of the complainant cannot be termed to be time barred, because the notification u/s 42 was published on 28.06.1979 and the award must have been passed much later, but the complainant moved the application on 30.06.1982 itself which is well within the limitation period, whereas even the time barred claims were ordered to be entertained by the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and other higher authorities under the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party-Trust has miserably failed to pass any speaking order either to allot the plot or to reject the application. The rules, 1983 were not applicable when the land belonging to the complainant was acquired and the notification was published on 22.12.1983, whereas the complainant has moved the application for allotment of a plot as LDP in the year 1982 itself and the complainant is entitled to the allotment of a suitable plot measuring 500 sq.yds. in the scheme for which the land was acquired and if the plot is not available, then the similar size of plot in any other scheme of opposite party No.2-Trust, having same value.

25.               So far as the question of compensation is concerned, the price of the land in the year 1982 and at present has arisen manifolds and, as such, escalation of the price of the land is sufficient compensation for the complainant, but she has been dragged unnecessarily into litigation and for that, she has to be paid the litigation expenses. As per judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 8^th October, 2012 passed in case “Monti Roy Vs State of Punjab. & Anr.” (Supra), the complainant would be entitled to the allotment of the plot at the current reserved price.

26.               In similar circumstances, Punjab & Haryana High Court observed in case “Kapoor Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, reported as 1995 (3) PLR-295 in Para-7 as follows:-

          “Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed. Respondent no.2 is   directed to allot to the petitioners the plots, measuring 400    sq.yds. each on reserve price calculated on the basis of formula        prescribed under the 1975 rules in any of the existing schemes, if        plots are available, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the plots are not available in the          existing scheme, then the petitioners shall be allotted plots in the           forthcoming scheme within a period of three months from the     date the scheme comes into operation.”

 

27.               Sequel to the above discussion, the complaint is accepted and the opposite parties, more particularly opposite party No.2-Trust is directed to allot to the complainant, a suitable plot of the area measuring 500 sq.yds.  in the scheme on current reserved price and in case the plot is not available in the above scheme, then the plot measuring 500 sq.yds. shall be allotted by opposite party No.2-Trust in any other scheme floated by it, having the same value. The complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.­­­­­30,000/- which opposite party no.2-Trust is liable to pay.

28.               Compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.

29.               The arguments in this complaint were heard on 13.01.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

30.               The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.

         

 

         

                                                              (Baldev Singh Sekhon)

                                                                   Presiding Member

                       

                                                            (Harcharan Singh Guram)

                                                                          Member

January 19, 2015.                                                          

(Gurmeet S)