S.K.M. Lodha, President –– Shri Anil Kumar Pareek sent the complaint by post which was received by the office on 20.3.1990. The dispute raised by the complainant in the complaint is with respect to plot No. 51 situate in Gandhipuri Residential Basti, Shahpura. He gave his bid in a public auction. He was the highest bidder. He gave the bid for Rs. 11,000/-. He has alleged that the plot was allotted to him. He is said to have deposited the balance of the auction money. The grievance of the complainant was that neither any patta was issued to him nor licence nor a document showing his ownership. After about two years he gathered from the opposite party orally that the plot in question had already been allotted to the persons belonging to the scheduled caste and as a result of that they had instituted a suit in a Civil Court which issued a temporary injunction restraining the opposite party from delivering its possession and to issue any document of title etc. He, therefore, sent the complaint by post claiming Rs. 3,85,000/- as compensation from the Municipal Board, Shahpura as detailed in Relief paras 1 to 5 of the complaint. In the subject of the complaint it is mentioned.

“NAGAR PALIKA SHAHPURA (JILA VILWARA) RAJASTHAN DARA RASHI JAMA KARYANE KE 6 VARSH BAD VI VUKHAND KA KABJA NAHI DENE WA JAMA RASHI BAYAJ SAHIT NAHI DENE TATHA VUKHAND NAHI ENE KE SAMBANDH ME.”

2. The opposite party has filed version of the case on 27.6.1990 opposing the complaint. Amongst others it is stated that the complainant had purchased the plot in auction. Against the order of auction, one Bansi Lal s/o Shri Chhitar Khatik resident of Shahpura instituted Civil Suit No. 14/86 in the Court of Civil Judge Shahpura for permanent injunction against Municipal Board, Shahpura. It is said that on account of the issuance of the interlocutory injunction by the Civil Court the Municipal Board could not issue documents of title, patta, and permission letter to the complainant, for, it was obligatory on the part of opposite party to obey the order of the Civil Court. It is submitted that the plot has already been alloted to Bansilal. The information about this was conveyed to the complainant. Claim for compensation was also denied. Certain objections were also taken in the additional pleas about the maintainability of the complaint. It was stated in para 4 of the additional pleas that the complainant is not a “consumer” an envisaged by the Act and the transaction is with respect to purchase of immovable property. Complaint No. 404/90 is said to have been filed by the complainant on 9.4.1990 before the District Forum, Ajmer and that is pending. In support of that photo stat copies of the complaint and the documents were submitted. Besides that the opposite party has submitted a photo stat copy of the licence dt : 25.7.1990 by which plot No. 270 as shown in the site plan appended to it was alloted to him on 99 years lease. The complaint is not maintainable for more than one reason. Bansilal instituted suit No. 14/85 for permanent prohibitory injunction against the Municipal Board, Shahpura in respect of the plot in question and a temporary injunction was issued against the Municipal Board, Shahpura restraining it from issuing documents of title, patta, and licence. In these circumstances it is submitted that no further proceedings in regard to the allotment of plot No. 51 could be taken. Besides that the case of the complaint is that a fraud has been perpetrated upon him, in as much as plot No. 51 which was alloted to him had already been alloted previously to the persons of Scheduled Caste, who had instituted a Civil Suit. All these facts have been stated in para 6 of the complainant. It is well settled by a catena of cases of the National Commission, New Delhi that a Redressal Forum can only grant relief/reliefs which are enumerated in Section 14(1) of the Act, As per the averments made, the case set up in the complaint is of fraud regarding which no investigatio