The court emphasized that the Commission had no power to review its previous order and advised the applicant to seek legal remedy if a fresh cause of action had arisen.

ORDER

Justice G.D. Sharma, President. - Through the medium of this application execution of award dated 24.12.2007 passed by this Commission in letter and spirit in terms of the provisions of J&K Consumer Protection Act as well as review of Execution application bearing No. 2973/08 consigned to records on 31.3.2009 have been prayed by way of reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that this Commission on 24.12.2007; in Complaint No. 2756 of 2006 had directed the non-applicant herein to hand-over the vacant possession of plot No. 187 measuring 30 ft. x 60 ft. in housing colony Pragati Vihar, Channi Rama, Jammu failing which they had to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 50,000 with increase of Rs. 10,000 per month for future negligence in not complying with the order. Litigation charges were awarded in the amount of Rs. 4,000. The applicant filed execution petition which was registered under No. 2973/2008 and was decided on 31.3.2009. The Judgment Debtor had filed the status report in the Commission which showed that the development of plots bearing Nos. 180 to 196 by way of earth work in cutting/filling including raising of Nalla wall had been completed, construction of internal roads by way of earth work, shiglling and metalling had been taken up. A request had been made by the judgment debtor to the decree holder to take possession of his plot bearing No. 187 within 7 days. This assurance was given in writing and the Commission consigned the Execution Petition to records by holding that needful had been done by the Judgment Debtor. An option was given to the Decree Holder that he can avail separate remedy in case that is available to him on account of fresh cause of action arising in his favour under Law. On 22.4.2009 possession of plot No. 187 measuring 30 ft. x 60 ft. had been handed over by the Deputy General Manager Housing Unit II, Jammu to the Decree Holder.

3. The grievance of the Decree Holder is that on 2.12.2009; when he started digging the foundation for the construction of his house, he was restrained by the police on account of the reason that the land from which his plot has been eked out was the subject matter of dispute in a civil litigation pending disposal before the learned Court of District Judge, Jammu in an appeal. He has mentioned some Khasra Nos. also. It is also alleged in the application that he has not been given amount of compensation.

4. The application has been opposed by the Judgment Debtor inter alia on the ground that application is not maintainable as the Commission has no power to review, its order passed on 31.3.2009. It is also pleaded that vacant possession of plot No. 187 had been handed-over to the applicant on 22.4.2003 and it is not under dispute. That the land which is in dispute in the civil suit is a separate piece of land and kept as disputed land and falls outside the master plan regarding the development of the colony in question. That no other person has raised any such dispute.

5. Heard the arguments.

6. Mr. Madan Lal, Advocate for the applicant has reiterated the grounds of his application in his arguments and further pleaded that he has been duped by the Judgment Debtor because the land comprising of plot No. 187 also falls in the area of the disputed land. However, he could not show us any record in order to prove his contention that plot No. 187 forms part of a disputed land regarding which litigation is going on in the learned Court of District Judge, Jammu.

7. We have perused the interim orders passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu which he has placed on record. Mr. N.A. Chowdry, the learned Counsel of the non-applicant has contended that in case the police personnel have restrained the applicant from digging his foundations that was an illegal act on their part and the applicant should have either apprised the learned District Judge or the superior police officials about that action. He is categorical in stating that land of plot No. 187 is within the approved ma