Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg, President &
Mrs. Sushma Tanwar, Member
RAMJILAL—Appellant
versus
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST—Respondent
Appeal No. 2438 of 1996—Decided on 11.5.2005
Possession - Auction Proceedings - Duty of the Owner to Give Possession Without Encroachment
Fact of the Case:
The appellant participated in an auction for a plot, deposited the required amount, and was issued a possession letter. However, the appellant was not able to take possession as the plot was occupied by illegal occupants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the owner of the property was obligated to give possession without any encumbrance. The court held that the respondents' stand that possession would be presumed to have been taken by the complainant after issuance of the possession letter was unreasonable and unacceptable. The court also held that the respondents were duty-bound to remove encroachments on the auctioned plot.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to vacant possession of the plot purchased during auction proceedings, despite the presence of illegal occupants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in auction proceedings, the owner of the property is obligated to give possession without any encumbrance. The court also held that if encroachments prevent the delivery of possession, there is a deficiency in service on the part of those conducting the auction proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The respondents were directed to give vacant possession of the plot purchased by the appellant during auction proceedings, or make alternate arrangements for a vacant plot within three months if vacant possession was not possible.
Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg, President—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 25.10.1996 passed by the District Forum, Alwar in Complaint Case No. 355/96 by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The necessary facts given rise to this appeal are as follows:
That the appellant complainant has filed a complaint before the District Forum on 18.5.1996 stating that during the auction proceedings conducted by the respondents he also participated and on 20.2.1993 for plot measuring 31.59 sq. mts. he also gave bid and ¼th amount to the tune of Rs. 7,248/- was deposited by him and the rest amount was deposited by him on 10.3.1993 in the office of other respondents. It was further stated in the complaint that the respondents issued a letter on 18.3.1993 for giving possession to the complainant appellant but the case of the complainant appellant was that he was not given the possession of the plot which he purchased through auction proceedings that had taken place on 20.2.1993.
A reply was filed by the respondents on 12.9.1996 and their case was that after the issuance of the possession letter dated 18.3.193 it would be presumed that within two weeks the appellant would have taken possession and during that period if anybody had encroached the plot for which respondents would not be responsible. Hence no case. Complaint be dismissed.
After hearing both the parties the District Forum dismissed the complaint inter alia holding that in case there was any hindrance in taking possession of the plot for which the complainant appellant should approach the Civil Court.
3. Aggrieved from that order this appeal has been filed by the appellant and the main case of the appellant is that it was the obligatory duty of the respondents to give the possession of the house without any encroachment and since the same was not done by the respondents, therefore, findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and should be set aside.
4. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record.
6. In this case there is no dispute on the point that possession letter was issued by the respondents to the complainant appellant on 18.3.1993 but in compliance of that the appellant could have not taken the possession as the plot in question was occupied by some illegal occupants. In our considered opinion the stand of the respondents that after issuance of the possession letter it would be presumed that the possession had been taken by the complainant, cannot be accepted.
7. When a person purchases a house through auction proceedings, in such a case the owner of the property would be under obligation to give the possession without any interpretation. If the possession of the plot could not be delivered because of the encroachment by some unauthorised persons for that there would be deficiency in service on the part of those persons who had conducted the auction proceedings. Thus the stand taken by the respondents is totally unreasonable and unacceptable.
8. Thus the findings of the District Forum that in such a case the complainant should approach the Civil Court are erroneous one and could not be sustained. Further more the respondents were duty bound to remove encroachments on the auctioned plot and since the same was not done by the respondents, therefore, the case of the complainant should be accepted.
9. For the reasons mentioned above this appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the appeal filed by the complainant appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 25.10.1996 passed by the District Forum, Alwar in Complaint Case No. 355/96 is set aside and the respondents are directed to give vacant possession of the plot which was purchased by the appellant complainant during auction proceedings and in case today it is not possible for the respondents to give vacant possession of that plot, respondents
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
