AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 28.01.2025.

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Petitioner.

VERSUS Sanjeev Kohli and another ....Respondents.

***

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA ---

Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has challenged order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘National Commission’), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.05.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, (for short, ‘State Commission’), has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no ‘deficiency of service’ on the part of the petitioner as even though the respondent No.1/complainant had been allotted Plot No.288 on 06.05.2002, he did not carry out any construction from the year 2002 to 2013. It was only in the year 2013 that respondent No.1 had approached this Court by preferring CWP No.4633 of 2013 with a prayer that the vacant possession of Plot No.288 be delivered to him and this Court while disposing the said writ petition had directed the Chief Administrator, GMADA, to redress the grievances of respondent No.1. It was in compliance of this order that the petitioner had allotted an alternative plot (Plot No.294) to respondent No.1 on 24.09.2013 after obtaining his due consent. Therefore, the liability for increased cost of construction ought not to have been fastened on the petitioner and thus, the State Commission has erred by taking into account the period prior to 2013 for computing the inflated cost of construction. He also submits that since the plot was allotted for ‘commercial purpose’, resultantly, respondent No.1 would not be covered under the definition of ‘Consumer’

under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. Heard.

4. The respondent No.1/complainant is stated to have applied for allotment of plot No.288 measuring 500 square yards in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 24.04.2002 issued by petitioner. The respondent No.1/ complainant deposited Rs.5,85,000/- i.e. 25% of the price of plot on 06.05.2002. The allotment letter was issued on 04.07.2002 and a No Dues Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 16.09.2002. The symbolic possession letter had also been issued on 26.08.2002, while the Conveyance Deed was executed on 17.12.2008 after payment of the entire sale consideration. Despite repeated requests by respondent No.1/complainant to the petitioner since 2008, for clear demarcation of the site and for providing basic amenities like water supply, electricity, or sewage to the plot allotted to respondent No.1, no steps were taken by the petitioner to redress his grievances and as such respondent No.1 was compelled to approach this Court in the year 2013 by preferring CWP No.4633 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2013 (Annexure P-1) with direction to the Chief Administrator, GMADA, to redress the grievances of respondent No.1. It was only on 24.09.2013 that the petitioner had allotted an alternative plot (Plot No.294) to respondent No.1 in compliance of the order passed by this Court. Further, respondent No.1 had to again approach this court by preferring another CWP No.15264 of 2014 impugning the order passed by Sub- Registrar, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby demand for payment of stamp duty charges had been raised for registration of Conveyance Deed of the alternative plot allotted to respondent No.1. This Court vide order dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure P-4) had held that since the respondent No.1 had already deposited stamp duty at the time of registration of Conveyance Deed of original Plot No.288, and the allotment of that plot was cancelled for no fault on his part, therefore, he is not liable to pay the stamp duty charges again. The relevant extract of order dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure