2021 Supreme(SC) 623

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
CHARANJIT KAUR – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4964 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5051 OF 2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4965 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5082 OF 2018), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4966 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16740 OF 2018)
DECIDED ON : 07-09-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Deficiency in service does not include transfer of title in favour of allottee who was earlier granted leasehold rights – Expression ‘service’ includes housing construction and not allotment of a site or a plot.
(2) Consumer Fora under the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of immovable property.
(3) A noting is a part of decision-making process – Such noting does not fructify into an order unless same is communicated to affected person – Noting by itself cannot be pressed into service to return a finding of deficiency in service.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(o) and 14(1)(e) – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 – Section 3 – Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Leasehold Land Tenure into Freehold Land Tenure Rules, 1996 – Real estate – Conversion of Plot from leasehold to freehold site on acceptance of requisite conversion fee – Deficiency in service – Such conversion was sought in view of fact that as against limited right in lease property for 99 years, Administration has decided to grant freehold rights on satisfaction of certain conditions mentioned in 1996 Rules – Central Government continues to be owner of land until entire consideration money together with interest or any other amount is paid to Central Government on account of transfer of any site or building or both as provided in Section 3 of Act – Owner (Central Government) cannot be said to be a trader or a service provider – Appellant is not charging any fee for conversion of leasehold property into freehold property except amount in accordance with 1996 Rules, which is part of sale consideration – It is a case of sale of immovable property on terms as were fixed in 1996 Rules – Amount so fixed under the Rules would form part of sale consideration and not a fee or charge levied for providing any kind of service – Deficiency in service does not include transfer of title in favour of allottee who was earlier granted leasehold rights – Expression ‘service’ includes housing construction and not allotment of a site or a plot. (Paras 18 and 19)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(o) and 14(1)(e) – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 – Section 3 – Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Leasehold Land Tenure into Freehold Land Tenure Rules, 1996 – Rule 5 – Real estate – Conversion of Plot from leasehold to freehold site on acceptance of requisite conversion fee – Deficiency in service – Consumer Fora had taken into consideration a noting in administrative file of appellant – A noting is a part of decision-making process – Such noting does not fructify into an order unless same is communicated to affected person – Noting by itself cannot be pressed into service to return a finding of deficiency in service – Action of appellant in rejecting request for conversion is arbitrary and discriminatory – Request could not be kept pending when statutory Rules were in force – Executive authority could not by an administrative order keep the matter pending, when there was no other reason not to accept conversion except impending increase in conversion charges – Since respondents are already in possession of sites as lessee on 99 years basis, it cannot be said that appellant was deficient in providing any service which would not include transfer of title in an immovable property – Consumer Fora under the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of immovable property – In exercise of power conferred on this Court under Article 142, Administration directed to decide claim of conversion as on date when consumer complaints were filed – Such action shall be taken within 3 months – Residents of Chandigarh are widely harassed while seeking no-objection certificate for sale of leasehold property as procedure for grant of no-objection certificate and of deposit of unearned increase is interpreted in different manners by different officials, which officers of Administration has failed to control – Another area of concern is unreasonable procedure adopted by Administration for affecting mutation after demise of leaseholder or allottee and of completing other formalities at offices of appellant – Difficult and near impossible procedure leads to arbitrary and discriminatory action by officials of Estate Office – Administration shall constitute a Committee which may include Member of Parliament from Chandigarh, an architect, an Advocate who is or had represented Chandigarh Administration before High Court, two representatives of the Municipal Corporation and officers of Administration. (Paras 20, 21, 24, 25, 29 and 30)

Facts of the case:

By impugned order, the NCDRC has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant against an order dated 16.05.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The respondent had sought conversion of Plot No. 4059, Sector 46 D, Chandigarh, from leasehold to freehold site on acceptance of the requisite conversion fee. District Forum directed the appellant to convert the said plot in question from leasehold to freehold site on acceptance of requisite conversion fee; to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; and to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

Findings of Court:

Administration to give details of the notices for resumption on account of alleged misuse which are pending consideration. Such details to include the date of serving of notice of alleged misuse and the stage of proceedings pending before different officers of Administration. A report to be submitted by Administration thereafter in respect of the above directions within 4 months for perusal and the necessary action, if so warranted, after four months.

Result : Appeals allowed with directions.