DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Raj Kumar s/o Sh.Ram Pal, Flat No.2064, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                …..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.     The Chandigarh Housing Board, (A Chandigarh Administration Undertaking) through its Chairman, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2.     The Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                   

PRESIDING MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    

MEMBER 

Argued by:        Sh.H.C.Kaushal, Counsel for complainant.

                        Sh.Rajiv Sharma, Counsel for OPs.       .

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

                Briefly stated, the OPs initially allotted Flat No.2064, HIG (L) Category in Sector 45-C, Chandigarh to one Charanjit Singh, who further sold it to the complainant. The said flat was transferred in name of the complainant vide letter dated 07.07.2010. It is averred that as per Ann.C-2, the complainant was required to execute the hire purchase tenancy agreement/agreement to sell/lease deed with conversion to be obtained from the counter of the OPs within one month, failing which, the transfer of registration No.10773 and allotment was liable to be cancelled. In view of this, the OPs issued letter dated 4.3.2010 directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.33,719/- in the CHB Current A/c No.215794 and also to pay the ground rent of Rs.880/- due upto 31.3.2010. The complainant complied with the above requirements and deposited the amount vide receipt No.121039, dated 6.3.2010. The complainant also submitted HPTA Form on 15.7.2010. As per the terms & conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant executed an agreement and paid the requisite amount for conversion of flat from lease hold into free hold, which was accepted by the OPs vide receipt dated 20.7.2010 but nothing was done by the OPs and on query under RTI Act, on line reply dated 23.4.2012 received by the complainant that it was kept pending due to court case. The complainant sent a letter dated 26.4.2012 to the OPs that the court case relates to different unit i.e. Flat No.1329, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh but due to the adamant attitude of OPs, the complainant had suffered a lot. Hence, this complaint.

2]             OPs No.1 & 2 filed joint reply, wherein, it has been pleaded that the complainant submitted his request for conversion of DU No.2064, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh on 20.7.2010 and his case was forwarded to different sections of the office for approval. It has been further pleaded that summons from the Court of C.J.M., Chandigarh was received by the office of the OPs directing Sh.S.C.Malik, AO-III to appear before the Court with the original record of DU No.2064, Sector 45, Chandigarh on 10.5.2011. A letter dated 23.4.2012 was sent to the complainant in reply to his application under RTI Act that the case of conversion of house from lease hold to free hold has been kept pending due to court case. It has been further pleaded that as per Rule 10(vii) of Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease-Hold Land Tenure into Free Hold Land Tenure Rules 1996, the conversion cannot be allowed in cases the Title of the property is disputed, until & unless the same is settled.  Denying all other material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs has been made.  

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]             The main contention of ld.Counsel for the complainant is that complainant had deposited requisite amount as well as all necessary documents for converting his Dwelling Unit No.2064, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh from lease hold to free hold, but inspite of that the OPs did not do so and kept the matter pending, without any reasons.  It is also contended that due to the said deficient act of the OPs, the complainant is suffering a lot.

6]             On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for OPs has argued that the house of the complainant could not be converted from lease hold to free hold due to pending court case before J.M.I.C., Chandigarh (Ann.R-1).  It is also argued that as per Rule 10(vii) of Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease-Hold Land Tenure into Free Hold Land Tenure Rules 1996,  the conversion cannot not be allowed in cases where the Title of the property is disputed, until & unless the same is settled.

7]             We find merit in the contention of ld.Counsel for the OPs.  Ann.R-1, placed on record by the OPs, sent to them by S.H.O., Vigilance Cell, U.T., Chandigarh, dated 11.07.2012, clearly proves that a prosecution case regarding the Dwelling Unit NO.2064, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh i.e. the unit in question, is still pending before the Court of Sh.Vijay James, J.M.I.C., Chandigarh.  Further, the Rule No.10(vii) of Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease-Hold Land Tenure into Free Hold Land Tenure Rules 1996 (Ann.C-9), clearly stipulates that the “Conversion shall not be allowed in cases where Title of the Property is disputed and until and unless the dispute is duly settled.”   

8]             When, it is not permissible under the rules, referred to above, to convert the unit from lease hold to free hold, till the Title of the Property is disputed and the same is not settled, then as to how the liability can be fastened on the OPs.  The act & conduct of the OPs cannot be held to be illegal, unjustified. Hence, no deficiency is attributed towards them.     

9]             In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove his case.  The complaint lacks merit.  Therefore, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.