Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member and Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
JOGINDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
IMPROVEMENT TRUST - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1 of 2016
Decided on : 01-11-2016
None, for the Respondent No. 2; Mr. Arjun Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Kavita Arora and Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocates, for the Respondent No. 1; Ex parte, for the Respondent Nos. 2A to 2F
Compliance with the conditions of the allotment letter is crucial for justifying the cancellation of the allotment.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Allotment of Plot - Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of the land and allotment of the plots) Rules, 1983 - Rule 4(2) - Summary: The complainant sought allotment of a plot under the Punjab Town Improvement Rules, but failed to comply with the conditions of the allotment letter, leading to the plot being resumed by the authorities. The court found that the complainant did not comply with the conditions of the allotment letter, justifying the cancellation of the allotment in favor of the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought allotment of a plot under the Punjab Town Improvement Rules, but failed to comply with the conditions of the allotment letter, leading to the plot being resumed by the authorities. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum as being barred by limitation, but was remanded back to give detailed findings on merits by the State Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant did not comply with the conditions of the allotment letter, justifying the cancellation of the allotment in favor of the complainant.
Issues: Compliance with conditions of the allotment letter, limitation of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant's failure to comply with the conditions of the allotment letter justified the cancellation of the allotment in favor of the complainant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member - The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 37 dated 11.6.2012 vide which the complaint filed by complainant was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in short 'the Act') against respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) on tire averments that he along with his brother Mohinder Singh were owners of land measuring more than 75 kanals situated within the revenue estate of Kapurthala, which was acquired by OP in the year 1976. Even the constructed portion was also acquired. They filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, retraining OP No. 1 for taking possession of the said area, which was decreed in the lower Court in their favour. However, in the appeal, the judgment ai d decree passed by the Learned Lower Court was set-aside. The complainant filed RSA No. 1887 of 1992 wherein counsel for the OP No. 1 suffered a statement before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that the construction existed at the acquired land was already removed and that one plot measuring 500 sq. yards stood allotted to the complainant and his brother as per provisions under Punjab Town improvement (Utilization of the land and allotment of the plots) Rules, 1983 (for short rules). Under the rules, the plot was allotted on a reserved price under Rule 4(2) of the rules. Now he has come to know that OP No 1 has passed resolution No. 311 dated 23.11.1992 to allot the plot in favour of complainant and his brother, subject to the condition that they should remove the construction existing at the acquired land. No such resolution was ever brought to the notice of the complainant or his brother, although no allotment letter or notice regarding deposit of the amount within specific period. However, officials of OP No. 1 informed the complainant that the allotment of the complainant has been resumed on account of non-payment of the price thereof, therefore, the order, if any, in respect of resumption of the plot is illegal, wrong and arbitrary. Complainant made representation and in view of it, OP No. 1 wrote a letter No. KIT-2011/517 dated 4.10.2011 recommending to the Authorities to revoke the previous resolution and to allot the plot in question at the reserve price by resuming the allotment as committed by OP before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court but with no result. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking directions against OPs for allotment of the plot measuring 500 sq. yards at the reserve price as per the rules, pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 and litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000.
3. Complaint was contested by OPs, who filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that allotment of plot No. 20 in question was made to the complainant and his brother vide allotment letter No. 86/17/131 dated 5.3.1994/2.2.1994; the complaint has been filed after delay of 18 years, therefore, barred by limitation; the complainant was stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint as the complainant according to the allotment letter did not deposit th of the total price within 30 days from the date of allotment letter as per Condition No. 3 of the said allotment letter and was also to execute an agreement to sell within 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter as per Clause 8 of the allotment letter; the complainant had not come to the Court with clean hands. He did not disclose the true facts. Due to non-compliance of the allotment letter, the plot allotted to the complainant and his brother was resumed vide resolution No. 1454 dated 12.1.1996. Again another resolution No. 1467 dated 26.7.1997 was passed for revocation of resolution No. 1454 but the Governm
