Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member and Anup K Thakur, Member
D.D. Upankar —Petitioner
versus
The Nelco Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.—Respondents
Revision Petition No.78 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 19/09/2014 in Appeal No. 854/2007 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 11.3.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Wasi Haider, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. G.K. Bhushan, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Society, developing plots with the money of its members, cannot sale the plot to the outsider.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Opposite No. 1 (Respondent No. 1) formulated Co-operative Housing Society for the purpose of acquiring land and allot plot to its members-the complainant became member of the Society – In spite of full payment, plot was not allotted, hence, claim execution of Sale Deed, allotment of plot or in the alternative refund.
Defence-Agreement denied-the complainant failed to follow the bye-laws of the society. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed to allot the plot or in the alternative, refund. and on appeal, the State Commission modified the order setting aside the order of allotting plot, but maintaining the order of refund. Not satisfied with the order, the complainant is in Revision. He stated that he wanted only possession of plot and not refund.
Held, A member of a Society, whose object was to develop land with the money of its members, has to allot it to its member and it cannot after developing the land with the money of the member can sell it to an outsider. (Para 11)
The complainant is entitled for possession.
Result: Revision allowed.
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.09.2014 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. A/07/854 of the respondent against the order dated 07.08.2007 of District Forum Nagpur vide which appeal of the respondent / opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a Co-operative Housing Society was formulated by the respondent no.1 / Opposite Party no. 1 and the main object of the Society was to acquire land and allot the plots to its members. Admittedly, the complainant / petitioner became one of the member of the Society in the year 1981. The object of the Society was to allot the plots to its members and it was approved by the Town Planning Department. Nagpur Improvement Trust in the year 1992 acquired the land of the Society and thus the acquired land became the holding of Nagpur Improvement Trust. After a protracted legal battle, Nagpur Improvement Trust agreed to release certain plots in favour of the society but the scheme of built up houses was quashed by Nagpur Improvement Trust. The society was initially having a scheme of 273 plots in Parsodi scheme. It was quashed by Nagpur Improvement Trust and only 210 plots were allotted to the Society for development purposes. In another scheme of the society earlier there were 82 plots but subsequently it was reduced to 40 plots. The size of the plots was 1500 sq. ft. On the application of the complainant / petitioner by way of an affidavit, he was allotted a plot @ Rs.15/- per sq. ft. i.e. Rs.22,500/- in 1992 and a demand letter dated 13.04.1992 was issued to the complainant / petitioner asking him to deposit sum of Rs.22,500/- by 25.10.1992. The complainant / petitioner however deposited the complete amount only by 27.03.1993 against the receipts. When the plot was not allotted to the complainant, the complainant issued a legal notice and thereafter filed the complaint, wherein he had made a request for execution of sale deed or in the alternative refund of money alongwith compensation.
3. In the written version, the plea taken by the respondent was that there was no agreement to give the plot to the petitioner / complainant. Their plea was that it was the complainant who had made a request for allotment of plot and agreed to pay the amount in four instalments. They also took the plea that since the complainant had failed to comply with clause 7 F of the by-laws of the society, since he did not file the requisite affidavit with declarations, the plot could not be allotted to the complainant. The plea that the payment of Rs.22,500/- was not done within the stipulated period i.e. by 25.10.1992 was also taken.
4. The parties led their evidences before the District Forum. The District Forum on the basis of evidences, held as under:—
“In the instant case, the non-applicants have admitted that the complainant is a member of their society. The main relief sought by the complainant in the instant case is that the non-applicants should be directed to execute sale deed in respect of plot in Mouza Naik Layout.
The complainant has filed receipts issued by the non-applicants society showing that the society had taken Rs. 1723/- from the complainant on 21.08.1981, on 28.10.1992 an amount of Rs. 7,000/- for plot development, on 11.02.1993 an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for plot development on 27.03.1993 an amount of Rs. 4,000/- for plot development. It is evident from the same that the complainant deposited Rs. 22,723/- with the non-applicants had issued receipts to him from time to time.
The non-applicants have mainly submitted in their Written Statement that since the Nagpur Improvement Trust took the possession of the plots in the layout of the non-applicant society, they filed suit against the Nagpur Improvement Trust. The Nagpur Improvement Trust handed over some of the plots some of the plots of the society. Complainant had given an affidavit s
