Punjab

Sangrur

CC/506/2015

Dev Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sangrur Imp. Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Kali Ram Garg

04 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                      

                                                Complaint No.  506

                                                Instituted on:    22.06.2015

                                                Decided on:       04.03.2016

 

Dev Anand son of Krishan Gopal, resident of House No.23, Captain Karam Singh Nagar, Sunam Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Sangrur Improvement Trust, Sangrur through its Executive Officer, Sunam Road, Sangrur.

2.             The Chairman,  Sangrur Improvement Trust, Sangrur.

3.             The Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Sachin Garg, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Vikramjit Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Dev Anand, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops as he is the owner in possession of the plot bearing number 23, Captain Karam Singh Nagar, Sangrur.  It is further averred that the plot in question was transferred by Op number 1 in the name of the complainant on 30.5.2011 after receipt of transfer fee of Rs.34031/- including all necessary dues.  It is further averred that the complainant completed the construction on the said plot upto June, 2013 and deposited Rs.18,750/- on 5.8.2013 as non construction fee and thereafter on 6.8.2013, the OP number 1 and 2 gave permission to the complainant for water and sewerage connection by getting deposited the fee of Rs.3010/-, as such nothing is due towards the complainant.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the bank for which he had to deposit the original sale deed of the plot/house for creating equitable mortgage with the bank as security for the loan.  Further the Manager, IDBI Bank Limited Sangrur has issued a letter dated 16.12.2014 requiring the complainant to deposit the original sale deed, as such, the complainant approached the Ops so many times to get the sale deed of the plot executed in favour of the complainant, but nothing was done by the Ops number 1 and 2 for the reasons known to them.  It is further averred that despite the fact nothing is due against the complainant, the Ops number 1 and 2 are not getting the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant, which is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and has thus prayed that the OPs be directed to execute and to get registered the sale deed of the plot in question and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.  

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into uncalled litigation and that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint.  On merits,  it has been admitted that the complainant is the owner of the plot in question.  It has been further averred that the complainant has raised the illegal construction behind the house, which is totally against the terms and conditions of the OPs, as it has been mentioned in the terms and conditions that the allottee shall left 10 ft. vacant space in front of the house and 15' vacant space in the back side of the house and the allottee shall not raise any kind of construction over the vacant space, but the complainant has raised the illegal construction at the back side of the house, which is totally illegal and against the terms and conditions.  It is further averred that in this regard OP number 1 issued a letter number 412 dated 9.5.2014 to the complainant, as such it is stated that due to the illegal act of the complainant and due to the illegal construction raised by him, the Ops are not executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             In rejoinder, the complainant has reiterated the allegations levelled by him in the complaint and has denied the allegations of the OPs.  However, it is stated that the alleged illegal construction has no concern with the demand of the complainant for getting the sale deed of his plot executed in favour of the complainant. The allegation of illegal construction is simply an excuse to refuse the registration of the sale deed in favour of the complaint.  It is stated that the complainant was never asked to demolish any part of the construction raised in has plot at any time and receipt of letter number 412 dated 9.5.2014 was never delivered to the complainant by OP number 1.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of letter dated 16.1.2014, Ex.C-2 copy of prescription slip, Ex.C-3 copy of newspaper cutting, Ex.C-4 copy of notice, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 postal receipts, Ex.C-7 cutting of newspaper dated 20.8.2015, Ex.C-8 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter, Ex.OP-3 copy of agreement, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 21.9.2010, Ex.OP-5 copy of letter to EO Sangrur, Ex.OP-6 copy of self declaration of Suresh Kumar, Ex.OP-8 copy of self declaration of Dev Anand dated 9.5.2011, Ex.OP-10 copy of letter dated 30.5.2011, Ex.OP-11 copy of affidavit of Dev Anand, Ex.OP-12 copy of indemnity bond, Ex.OP-13 copy of site plan and Ex.OP-14 copy of letter to Chairman and closed evidence.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is the owner of the plot bearing number 23  in Captain Karam Singh Nagar.  It is also an admitted fact that nothing is due towards the complainant including the non construction fee etc.  The grievance of the complainant in the present case is that the Ops are/have not getting the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant, despite of the fact that the complainant has already paid all the dues to the Ops including the cost of the plot, more so when, he had to deposit the sale deed in question with the IDBI Bank Limited, Sangrur, from whom he has raised a loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, which is said to be deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the complainant has raised illegal construction behind the house, which is totally against the terms and conditions of the opposite parties, as the complainant was to leave 10 feet vacant space in front of the house and 15' vacant space at the backside of the house .  It is contended further by the learned counsel for the Ops that the complainant has not raised the construction as per the site plan prepared and submitted by the complainant to the OPs. 

 

7.             It is an admitted fact of the Ops that the complainant has already deposited the whole proceeds including cost of the plot, non construction fee and even the charges for water and sewerage connection of the plot in question and nothing is due towards the complainant.   Ex.C-4 is the copy of legal notice dated 19.07.2015 served upon the OP for getting the sale deed executed and registered of the plot in question, but nothing was done by the OP nor any reply was given thereof.   Ex.C-8 is the affidavit of the complainant to corroborate the allegations levelled in the complaint. 

 

8.             It is worth mentioning here that the OPs have not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that what kind of illegal construction has been raised by the complainant and how it differs with the site plan duly approved by the Ops.  No reply has been given by the Ops to the legal notice served upon  the OPs by the complainant.  It has been mentioned by the Ops that OP number 1 issued a letter number 412 dated 9.5.2014 to the complainant that the construction raised by the complainant is not as per the site plan prepared and submitted by the complainant before the office of OP number 1, but the same has also not been produced on record by the Ops.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they withheld such letter dated 9.5.2014 (if it was duly served upon the complainant) and why they did not produce the same on record. It is further worth mentioning here that the complainant has denied the receipt of such letter from the Ops.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops never issued any such letter dated 9.5.2014 to the complainant.  Further, the Ops have filed a vague and baseless written statement, which is without any basis. Some contents of the written statement of para number 3 are reproduced as "...It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has raised illegal construction behind the house, which is totally against the terms and conditions of the opposite parties, as it is mentioned in the terms and conditions of the opposite parties that the allottee has left 10 ft. vacant space in front of the house and 15' vacant space at the backside of the house and the allottee will not raise any kind of construction over this vacant space.  But, the complainant has raised the illegal construction at the backside of the house, which is totally illegal and against the terms and conditions of the opposite parties. In this regard opposite party no.1 issued a letter no. 412 dated 09.05.2014 to the complainant that the construction raised by the complainant is not as per the site plan prepared and submitted by the complainant before the office of opposite party no.1.  So, due to the illegal act of the complainant and due to illegal construction raised by the complainant, the opposite parties are not executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant."

 

9.             Further the opposite parties have produced nothing on record i.e. rules or regulations of the Government to show that  as alleged if the complainant has raised any illegal construction on the plot in question, then they can withheld the registration of the sale deed of the plot in question. Further there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not produce any such regulations.   As such, we feel that the Ops have illegally and with malafide intention has withheld the registration of the sale deed of the plot of the complainant and as such, the complainant has been harassed a lot in the hands of the OPs.  To support the contention of the complainant, the complainant has also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission in First Appeal No.889 of 2011, decided on 16.09.2013 titled as Improvement Trust, Ludhiana versus Manmohan Singh, which was further affirmed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Improvement Trust and another versus Manmohan Singh  II(2015) CPJ 66 (NC). The Hon'ble Punjab State Commission also held that Improvement Trust is bound to execute the conditional sale deed in favour of the complainant, however complainant was bound to remove the unauthorized construction.  Since nothing has been produced by the Ops that what kind of illegal construction has been raised by the complainant, we are unable to pass any such order against the complainant to remove the illegal construction, if any.  However, the Ops are at liberty to remove the illegal construction of the complainant on the plot in question, if any, by giving him a notice according to law.

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and  allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to execute and to get registered the sale deed of the plot number 23, Captain Karam Singh Nagar in favour of the complainant. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.    

 

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 4, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member