Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Honble Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, President &
Mrs. Firoza Bano, Member
PRAMOD KUMAR—Appellant
versus
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST—Respondent
Appeal No. 444 of 1993—Decided on 18.4.1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : None.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Collection of development charges with penalty by U.I.T. - Appeal- Complainant owns agricultural land- U.I.T. disowns responsibility - Letter of Permission - U.I.T. would not responsible not carrying for development work Complaint for refund of collected charges - Whether complainant would be entitled to refund of charges? (Yes).
Held: It may be mentioned that although the complainant was compelled to pay the development charges and penalty by the U.I.T. Udaipur. Yet it is interesting to note that in the permission letter issued by the U.I.T. on 6-2-1990. it was mentioned at item No. 20 that it would not be the responsibility of the Urban Improvement Trust to carry out development work. When the U.I.T. disowned its responsibility to carry out any development work how could it charge development charges from the complainant. The payment of development charges is in lieu of carrying out the development work. When the U.I.T. disowns its responsibility to carry out the development work. it could not charge development charges from the complainant. The opposite party in its version has only tried to explain as an afterthought that by the above mentioned in item No. 20 of the permission letter, it was only meant to say that it was not the responsibility of the Urban Improvement Trust to provide amenity of electricity and water. Rest of the development work like building of road and nali would be made by the Trust.
This version is, as already stated an afterthought. In the permission letter at item No. 20 the words "development work" have been mentioned and it was not mentioned that only amenity of electricity and water would, not be the responsibility of the U.I.T. Clearly in the letter of permission the U.I.T., Udaipur mentioned that the Trust would not be responsible for carrying out development work. The U.I.T. could not, therefore, charge development charges disowning its responsibility to carry out the development work. The complainant was, therefore, entitled to the refund of the development charges and penalty realised from him by the U.I.T.
(Para 3)
Result : Appeal allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
When Urban Improvement Trust disowns the liability of development, complainant is entitled to recollect the charges paid by him for the development.
Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, President—This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Udaipur dated 1.1.1993 dismissing his Complaint Case No. 324/91. Complainant had agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 311/3 situated in Village Paneriyon Ki Madari, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. The complainant made an application to the authorised officer under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 for conversion of land for residential purposes. Sub Divisional Officer (Land Conversion II, Udaipur by his order dated 2.7.1983 allowed conversion of 266.666 sq. yds agricultural land for residential purposes in favour of the complainant subject to the complainant depositing the conversion charges, development and peripheral development charges. The complainant deposited the entire conversion charges, development and peripheral development charges with the authorised officer. A patta on lease-hold basis was accordingly issued in favour of the complainant on 18.11.1985. After conversion, the complainant applied to the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur f or making construction of house on this converted land. The U.I.T. however, required the complainant to deposit Rs. 9,600/-as development charges and Rs. 5,981/-as penalty. As the complainant had to take loan for construction of the house, he deposited these amounts. Thereafter on 22.8.1991 the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Udaipur alleging that the Urban Improvement Trust had no authority to charge development charges and penalty. The complainant also referred to a notice issued by the Urban Improvement Trust on 19.5.1990 wherein it was notified that penalty amount will not be charged from persons who deposited development charges in lump sum before 31.5.1990. Despite this, penalty amount was charged from the complainant. The Urban Improvement Trust has thereafter given permission to the complainant to make construction on the converted land, on 6.2.1990. However, in the permission letter issued by die Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur on 6.2.1990 it was mentioned at item No. 20 of the permission that it would not be the responsibility of the U.I.T. to carry out development work. The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint for refund of the development charges and penalty deposited by him with the Urban Improvement Trust on 1.1.1990.
The version of the opposite party was that a notice regarding not charging penalty had been issued on 19.5.1990. The complainant had deposited the development charges and penalty before this date and, therefore, the relaxation was not applicable to him. The opposite party also pleaded that development work will be carried out from out of the amount deposited as development charges. As regards the contents of the permission letter in its item No. 20, it was pleaded that development charges do not include provision for electricity and water amenity and, therefore, when the U.I.T. mentioned that it would not be its responsibility to carry out the development work. It was only meant the amenity of electricity and water. It stated that the complainant was not entitled to the refund of the amount of development charges and penalty.
2. The District Forum held that the complainant had not pleaded that the land was not situated within Udaipur Zone and for that reason the opposite party was not entitled to realise development charges. It was stated that under the Conversion Rules of 1981 local authority was competent to realise development charges. It also held that the complainant had deposited the development charges and penalty on 1.1.1990 i.e., before the date the rebate was allowed. Due to this fact, the complainant was not entitled to rebate. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.
3. The appellant did not appear despite notic
