State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Kishan Dass Paul on 14 July, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1936 of 2010
Date of institution: 09.11.2010
Date of decision : 14.07.2015
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Chairman.
.....Appellant/J.D.
Versus
Krishan Dass Paul son of Late. Sh. Achhar Ram, resident of 196-B, GG-1,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018
....respondent/Decree holder
First Appeal against the order dated 29.07.2010
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar
Before:-
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Prem Kumar, Advocate with
Sh. Anuj Rai, Clerk
For the respondent : Sh. Ashish Grover, Advocate with
Sh. K.D. Paul, in person
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN (PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER) Order This appeal has been preferred by appellant/JD/OP (hereinafter referred as 'JD') under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 29.07.2010 in Execution. No. 43 of 08.04.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short the 'District Forum') vide which the execution application filed by the decree holder/complainant (hereinafter referred as 'DH') was allowed with the directions to J.Ds that in case the physical possession of plot No. 117 with the identifiable boundaries and measurement mentioned in the sale deed is not possible, then they are under obligation to allot any other alternative plot of the First Appeal No.1936 of 2010 2 same measurement in some other approved colony after giving demarcation and physical possession and also to issue No Due Certificate. If no plot is available, to pay the market value of the plot in question within three months.
2. A consumer complaint No. 369 of 2007 was filed by the complainant/DH before District Forum, Jalandhar which was allowed vide order dated 29.05.2008 and demand of Rs. 1,64,850/- raised in letter dated 28.03.2007 by the OPs was quashed and they were directed to give demarcation and physical possession of the plot at the spot and also issue No Due Certificate. According to the complainant plot No. 117, measuring 8 marlas in the Development Scheme of 43 Acres launched by J.D, whereas sale deed of 7 Marlas 151 sq. Ft. was executed in favour of the complainant vide document No. 871 dated 18.09.1997.
3. On the basis of this order, the DH had filed the execution application against the JD/OP to execute the order passed by the District Forum. During the proceedings Naib Tehsildar, Jalandhar (Revenue) was appointed as Local Commissioner to measure and demarcation for the purpose of delivery of possession of this plot. But at the spot number of persons raised objections, therefore, the possession of the plot could not be delivered. After appreciating the order passed by the District Forum in the complaint and the actual inspection report at the spot as reported by the Local Commissioner, the impugned order was passed.
4. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/J.D.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. It has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the learned District Forum had not properly appreciated the evidence on record. In fact, the decree holder themselves did not take the possession.
7. During the proceedings of the appeal, option was sought by the parties if any plot under this scheme or any other scheme is available and on 06.12.2013, First Appeal No.1936 of 2010 3 the decree holder had stated that he seen the plot No. 938-A in Surya Enclave and he is ready to take the possession of that plot. Later on the J.D. took various adjournments to say whether they are ready to deliver the possession of the plot. Then the complainant had also given the consent to take the possession of plot No. 126 measuring 177 Sq. Yard situated at Surya Enclave but later on he did not agree to that also.
8. The Executing Court is to execute the order passed by the District Forum. According to the order passed by the District Forum, they were to give the possession of the plot No. 117 of 8 Marlas, but the sale deed was executed on 7 Marlas of 151 sq. Ft. only which was the actual measurement of that plot but the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the plot due to the objections raised by the various people at the spot. The appellants have not been able to refer any document on the record which may prove that the demarcation of this plot was conducted by the officials but the DH was not willing to take the possession rather the report of the ATE supports the contentions of the DH that the persons present at the spot did not allow the possession at the spot. They did not take police help for the demarcation and delivery of possession. The area of plot No. 938-A is of 8 Marlas. According to the letter No. 5/2/96-ILGII/9016 dated 19.08.1999 issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government (Local Govtt. IT Branch) that the additional land upto 50 sq yds be allotted by the Improvement Trusts to the plot holders on one and a half times of the reserve price. The respondent/decree holder stated that he is ready to pay the price of the additional area. Basically the entitlement of the complainant was 8 Marla but at the spot the area of the plot No. 117 was less, therefore, conveyance deed was executed for the lesser area and in case Plot No. 938-A is allotted to the decree holder/complainant, it will be in accordance with the original allotment. In case he has paid less price, the same can be made good according to the instructions referred above.
9. In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the appeal with the directions to the appellant/J.D. to allot and deliver the possession of plot No. 938-A in Surya First Appeal No.1936 of 2010 4 Enclave to the complainant/decree holder within a period of two months. In case, the area of the plot is excess and less price has been paid by the decree holder/complainant, then he will pay the additional amount according to the letter dated 19.08.1999 referred above.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 06.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER July 14 , 2015.
Rupinder