BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.201 of 2015

Date of Instt. 14.05.2015

Date of Decision :14.05.2015

Vijay Kumar son of Dina Nath R/o 252, Friends Colony, Gopal Nagar, Hari Mandir, Amritdar-143001.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. State of Punjab through the Financial Commissioner, Revenue & Secretary of Govt.of Punjab, Department of Revenue and Rehabilitation, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2. Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur.

3. Tehsildar(sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Hoshiarpur.

4. Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur.

5. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

6. Union of India through Chief Settlement Commissioner & Joint Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that in an open auction conducted by the Tehsildar(sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Hoshiarpur on 29.8.1983, the complainant had purchased a plot No.70 under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act 1976 measuring 8 marlas 8 sarsais for Rs.22900/- situated in village Chaholi Tehsil & District Hoshiarpur. The complainant had made the entire payment qua the plot in question and nothing is due against him. Further, the complainant neither had violated terms and conditions of the auction nor till date the auction has been set-aside, rather the same has been confirmed by the Hon'nle Sale Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 13.12.1983, therefore the complainant is rightful owner of the plot and is entitled to get the deed of conveyance alongwith the actual delivery of physical possession of the plot No.70, which has not been given to the complainant till date inspite of best efforts, which amounts to delay and deficiency in service. The complainant had made many representations to the various authorities viz Tehsilar, Hoshiarpur, Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab for delivery of the physical possession and issue of the deed of conveyance, but they have lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Sometimes the authorities instructed to get demarcation of that plot and sometimes the authorities suggested to file a civil suit in the Civil Court for partition, knowing well the fact that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the land falls under the Punjab Package Deal Properties(Disposal) Act 1976, and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred as per section (16) of the said Act. Finally when the complainant has filed an application dated 16.4.2015 before the court of Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Manager Officer, Hoshiarpur to hand over to the complainant physical possession of the plot in question and also to issue to the complainant deed of conveyance, the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur vide his letter dated 17.4.2015 has replied that the possession of the land measuring 8 marlas 8 sarsais was delivered on 7.12.1984 and subsequently sale certificate dated 10.12.1984 was issued and in support, the Tehsildar has also attached the copy of the rapat No.166 in the roznamcha dated 7.12.1984, whereas the fact is that the land in question is still under unauthorized and illegal possession of one Harbans Lal son of Jagir Ram (Gair Marusi) and this unauthorized possession is still continuing for the last 35 years in connivance with the revenue authorities. In case the possession to the complainant was delivered on 7.12.1984, his name must have been incorporated in the subsequent jamabandies under the column "Kashtkar da naam atey verva(i.e possessioner or cultivator's name and particulars)", but it has not been done till date, which simply implies that the complainant has not been delivered physical possession of the plot. Scrutiny of the latest jamabandi for the year 2012-13 confirms it that the land in question is still in possession of P.W.D. Authorities(Makbooja) and Harbans Lal and the revenue authorities have been collecting Laggan (Tax) @ Rs.160/- per acre per annum from the said Harbans Lal as has also been mentioned in the same jamabandi for the year 2012-13 under the column Khatauni number/Lagaan. With this, it is proved beyond doubts that the land is in unauthorized and unlawful cultivating possession of Harbans Lal, which is being continued in connivance with the revenue authorities, with the result that an unauthorized colony is said to have come up on this land, which has been agreed by the revenue authorities in Fard Jamabandis. In case the possession of his plot No.70 has been delivered to the complainant, his name must have been mentioned in the jamabandi, but it is not there. When the complainant has not been shown as possessioner in the jamabandi, there is no proof that any court shall agree that the complainant had ever come into possession of the plot which was purchased by him from the Tehsildar (Sales). Without dispossessing PWD authorities (Makbooja) and the Harbans Lal from the land under reference, which belonged to the Central Government, the alleged possession shown in rapat roznamcha was definitely a symbolic possession. Perusal of rapat roznamcha also shows that the said land was under unauthorized and unlawful cultivating possession of one Harbans Lal, which has been confirmed in rapat roznamcha in this manner, second party Harbans Lal son of Jagiri Ram was called through Durga Singh witness. He did not come to be present. The entry relating to the said Harbans Lal in the rapat roznamcha is a proof beyond doubts that the said Harbans Lal in someway or the other had vested interests with the land in question and these vested interests were that he was in cultivating possession of the land and when the land was under cultivating possession of the said Harbans Lal then the alleged possession if any had been delivered at that time on 7.12.1984 definitely was a symbolic possession. When the land in question was in possession of PWD Authorities, the handing over possession through Rapat No.166 in the roznamcha dated 7.12.1984 was a sham exercise. Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur in his reply dated 17.4.2015 has mentioned that after verification of the record, it has been found that the possession was handed over on 7.12.1984, in the presence of other persons, but scrutiny of rapat roznamcha, where these persons have signed, reveals that the alleged possession was given to one Vijay Kumar son of Kishan Nath whereas the complainant is Vijay Kumar son of Dina Nath and towards his mistake no objection was raised by anyone,who has signed the rapat roznamcha, which raises many questions regarding the accuracy and integrity and simply implies it was a meager formality conducted in the presence of so called witnesses. In the present case, no doubt the complainant is the rightful owner of the plot in question as has also been confirmed in the copy of the latest jamabandi for the year 2012-13, but he has not been shown in any of the jamabandis that he is in possession of the said plot since the actual physical possession has not so far been delivered to the complainant as the said land still continued to be in possession of the PWD Authorities (Makbooja) and under unauthorized and unlawful cultivating possession of one Harbans Lal, under circumstances, the said Harbans Lal has to be dispossessed first from the unauthorized and unlawful possession to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot to the complainant, which has not been done till date and no reason for this irregularity has been explained in the revenue record. It is as well settled rule for such properties that it is only after the sale certificate conveyance deed is issued, the purchaser shall be entitled to take the possession of the property sold to him. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for issuance of conveyance deed relating to the said plot and copy of sale certificate. He has further prayed that he may be delivered actual physical possession of the plot No.70 purchased by him and thereafter his name be incorporated in the jamabandi. He has also prayed for providing him lay out plan and dimensions of the same. He has further prayed for Rs.10 Lacs as compensation.

2. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person.

3. Without going into merits of the case, we are of the view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Complainant contended that office of the commissioner is situated at Jalandhar and opposite parties No.2 to 4 are under the control of learned Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Simply on the ground that opposite parties No.2 to 4 are under the administrative control of Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, or same correspondence has been done with Commissioner Jalandhar Division, it can not be held that any part of cause of action has arisen at Jalandhar. The complainant is resident of Amritsar. The plot is situated at Hoshiarpur. It was purchased in open auction from Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Hoshiarpur and even the sale was confirmed by Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. So in our opinion, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

4. Consequently, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant after making necessary endorsement on it for presentation of the same before District Consumer Forum, Hoshiarpur. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under rules.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

14.05.2015 Member Member President