Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/498/2015

Gurdass Singh Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Finance Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

Satbir Singh Walia

17 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/498/2015
Date of Institution	:	04/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	17/01/2018

 

Gurdass Singh Walia, r/o House No. 1544, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      The Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2.      Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, U.T., Sector 17, Estate Office, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Satbir Singh Walia, Counsel for complainant.
		Sh. K.K. Gupta, Counsel for OPs.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Gurdass Singh Walia, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration and another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he submitted an application dated 10.01.2013 to Opposite Party No.2 along with requisite documents and Bank Draft No. 006218 dated 09.01.2013 for an amount of Rs.12,000/- as fee for conversion of Plot/House No.1544, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh from Lease Hold Tenures into Free Hold. However, the Opposite Party No.2 took no action for more than 11 months and thereafter, vide its letter No. 61591/M-20/G-VI/2013 dated 17.12.2013 returned the Demand Draft (in original) stating that the Chandigarh Administration had decided not to allow conversion from Lease Hold Tenure into Free Hold vide order dated 10.05.2013. Eventually, a legal demand notice dated 13.07.2015 was sent to the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to bore the fruition. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainants have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         In their joint written reply, Opposite Parties have admitted that the complainant applied for conversion of the site from leasehold into freehold in the office of the Opposite Parties on 10.01.2013.  It has been averred that in view of the letter dated 10.05.2013, the office of Opposite Parties had stopped conversion from leasehold into freehold. It has been averred that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  It has been pleaded that by submitting an application and depositing fee for converting his plot/site, the complainant’s right has not accrued and the Chandigarh Administration is competent to enhance/ decrease the rate of charges for conversion of leasehold to freehold plots at any stage. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the Parties. 
6.         The Chandigarh Administration had framed a policy namely “The Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease-Hold Land Tenure into Free-hold Land Tenure Rules, 1996”, copy of which is Annexure C-7.  The complainant submitted an application to Opposite Party No.2 on 10.01.2013 along with requisite documents and Bank Draft dated 09.01.2013 for an amount of Rs.12,000/-, copy of which is Annexure C-2, for conversion of the leasehold site into freehold site in respect of Plot/House No.1544, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh. Opposite Party No.2 accepted the amount of conversion and started the process of conversion from leasehold to freehold. However, later on Opposite Party No.2 sent a letter dated 17.12.2013, copy of which is Annexure C-3, whereby the complainant was informed that his request could not be considered as Opposite Party No.2 had received a letter dated 10.05.2013 from the office of Finance Department, UT, Chandigarh to this effect that the Chandigarh Administration was reviewing the rate of conversion charges from leasehold to freehold of sites and Opposite Party No.2 was directed not to allow any conversion till further orders. Thus, the material point for determination in this case is whether the action of the Opposite Parties in refunding the amount deposited by the complainant and refusing the requested conversion is illegal resulting into harassment to the complainant and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7.         The learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties has argued that the Chandigarh Administration had framed a scheme named “The Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease-Hold Land Tenure into Free-hold Land Tenure Rules, 1996” under which Opposite Party No.2 had been converting plots/buildings from leasehold into free hold.  He has contended that in view of the Chandigarh Administration’s letter dated 10.05.2013, copy of which is Annexure R-I, Opposite Party No.2 has stopped conversion from leasehold into freehold.  He has contended that the Joint Secretary (Estates) for Finance Secretary sent a letter to Opposite Party No.2 wherein it was mentioned that the issue of revision of rate for conversion under the scheme “The Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease-Hold Land Tenure into Free-hold Land Tenure Rules, 1996” was under consideration of the Administration.  Opposite Party No.2 was directed not to allow any conversion under the said scheme till further orders. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties has argued that by submitting an application and depositing fee for converting his plot/site, no right had accrued to the complainant. He has submitted that the Chandigarh Administration is competent to enhance/decrease the rates of charges for conversion from leasehold to freehold of plots at any stage. He has submitted that in view of the order of the Chandigarh Administration conveyed vide letter dated 10.05.2013, Opposite Party No.2 has declined the request of the complainant for conversion of plot from leasehold into freehold and has also refunded the amount deposited by him with the application vide letter dated 17.12.2013. He has argued that earlier the amount was tentatively accepted subject to approval of the competent authority. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties has vehemently argued that the complainant is not entitled to any damages from the Opposite Parties because the Chandigarh Administration is competent to make any change in the scheme. 
8.         We have carefully considered the above arguments of the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties.  A narration of the facts above and the perusal of the documents (Annexure C-1 to C-7) reveals that the complainant applied for conversion of leasehold site into freehold site in respect of H.No.1544, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh and also deposited the conversion fee as per “The Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease-Hold Land Tenure into Free-hold Land Tenure Rules, 1996”. The amount of conversion fee was accepted and it has not been denied by the Opposite Parties that Opposite Party No.2 had also started the process of conversion from leasehold to freehold. The application for depositing the conversion fee was made by the complainant on 10.01.2013 and the amount was deposited vide demand draft dated 09.01.2013. However, Opposite Party No.2 refunded the amount deposited by the complainant vide letter dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure C-3) on the basis of the letter dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure C-4) sent by the Finance Department, Chandigarh. It is no doubt true that the Chandigarh Administration is competent to change any clause of the scheme at any time and to enhance/decrease the rate of conversion charges. However, it is significant that though Opposite Party No.2 was intimated on 10.05.2013 by Chandigarh Administration Finance Department that the issue of revision of rate for conversion under the scheme was under consideration and he was directed not to allow any conversion order under the said scheme till further orders, yet, even after passing of four months, no decision has been taken by the Opposite Parties in respect of the revision of the rate for conversion. We feel that when the complainant had deposited the conversion fee vide letter dated 10.01.2013 and Opposite Party No.2 accepted the amount of conversion fee and also started the process of conversion from leasehold to freehold site, the process of conversion could not be stopped midway.  We are of the view that since no fresh notification has been issued by the Chandigarh Administration, therefore the conversion from leasehold to freehold could not be denied to the complainant merely on the basis of the letter dated 10.05.2013 on the ground that the issue of revision of rate for conversion is under consideration.  It is settled law that any notification issued is to be implemented prospectively and not retrospectively.
9.         We may mention that earlier one Mr. Raj Kumar filed a consumer complaint against the Chandigarh Housing Board etc. which was dismissed by the District Forum. Mr. Raj Kumar filed First Appeal No.339 of 2012 which was allowed by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh on 11.01.2013, wherein the following operative order was passed :-

“12.  In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is accepted with costs and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The Opposite Parties are directed to:

i)      Convert the Dwelling Unit No.2064, Sector
45-C, Chandigarh from lease hold basis to free hold basis, as per Rules.

ii)     Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

iii)    Pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.”

The Opposite Parties did not prefer any appeal against that order and that order became final and Mr. Raj Kumar filed an execution application for enforcement of the order under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, which was allowed by the District Forum.  The Chief Executive Officer and the Secretary of the Chandigarh Housing Board were sentenced to imprisonment by the District Forum, Chandigarh for non-compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh. The Chief Executive Officer and the Secretary of the Chandigarh Housing Board went in appeal against the order passed by this Forum.  A perusal of the copy of the decision dated 08.08.2014 in First Appeal No.225 of 2014 titled Sh. Rodney L. Ralte, IAS and another Vs. Raj Kumar, passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh shows that the officers of the Chandigarh Administration thereafter complied with the order on 12.06.2014. We are of the view that when the order passed in First Appeal No.339 of 2012 decided on 11.01.2013 could be complied with on 12.06.2014, despite the directions given in the letter dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure R-I) of the Chandigarh Administration, in this case also the complainant could be given the relief of conversion of plot No.1544, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh from leasehold into freehold site. Once the complainant had deposited the requisite conversion fee, he became a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the act of refunding the conversion fee to him and not converting plot from leasehold into free hold site for such a long time amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

10.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OPs are directed  :-

i)      To convert plot No.1544, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh from leasehold to free hold site on acceptance of requisite conversion fee.

ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

11.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present consumer complaint till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
17/01/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”