National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ludhiana Improvement Trust & Anr. vs Harchand Singh on 15 March, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4211 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 26/03/2014 in Appeal No. 810/2010 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ANR. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT : LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. HARCHAND SINGH S/O SURJIT SINGH, R/O VILLAGE GILL, TEHSIL & LUDHIANA PUNJAB 2. STATE OF PUNJAB , THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERMENT DEPARTMENT OF PUNJAB , CHANDIGARH, SCO 131-132, JUNEJA BUILDING, ,SECTOR- 17-C CHANDIGARH ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 13/12/2012 in Complaint No. 37/2008 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ANR. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/ADMINISTRATOR, LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. HARPREET SINGH GREWAL S/O. DR. PARAMJIT SINGH, GREWAL, THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SMT. RENU BALA, WIFE OF AJAY KUMAR, R/O. 70-B UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 2233 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 31/08/2018 in Complaint No. 16/2012 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. IMPROVEMENT TRUST THROUGH HIS ADMINSTRATOR LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. JAGIR KAUR & ANR. THROUGH HER POWER ATTORNEY SH PRBHJIT SINGH
S/O. SH GURBACHAN SINGH R/O. 171, MODAL TOWN LUDHINA PUNJAB 2. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERMENT PUNJAB CHANDIGARH PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 19/01/2015 in Complaint No. 89/2013 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. HARBANS KAUR & ANR. D/O. TEJ KAUR, AND W/O. PRITHIPAL SINGH, THROUGH HER ATTORNEY SH. TARSEM LAL S/O. SH. BAWA, R/O. BADOWAL, JAIL ROAD, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-GURDASPUR, PUNJAB 2. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT., PUNJAB CHANDIGARH ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT : IN RP/4211/2014, FA/838/2015 & FA/2233/2018 FOR THE PETITIONER/ : MR. SHUBHAM BHALLA, ADVOCATE APPELLANT MS. RAGINI SHARMA, ADVOCATE IN FA/200/2015 FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. B. K. MISHRA, ADVOCATE MS. POONAM ATEY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : IN RP/4211/2014, FA/838/2015 & FA/2233/2018 FOR RESPONDENT : MRS. S. S. SALAR, ADVOCATE IN FA/200/2015 FOR RESPONDENT : MRS. S. S. SALAR, ADVOCATE Dated : 15 March 2024 ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition No. 4211 of 2014, along with three First Appeal Nos. 200 & 835 of 2015 and FA 2233 of 2018, have been filed under Section 21(b) & 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by the Petitioner/ Appellants respectively. These Appeals and Revision Petition challenged the Impugned Orders dated 26.03.2014, 13.12.2012, 19.01.2015 & 31.08.2018 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), pertaining to Appeal No. 810/2010 & Consumer Complaint Nos. 37/2008, 89/2013 & 16/2012. In Appeal No. 810/2010, the Respondent/Complainant's appeal was upheld, leading to set aside the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (the "District Forum"), thereby ruling in favor of the Complainant. Conversely, in CC Nos. 37/2008, 89/2013 & 16/2012, the Ld. State Commission ruled in favor of the Complainant.
2. The filing of RP/4211/2014 is delayed by 143 days, FA/200/2015 by 795 days, FA/838/2015 by 240 days, and FA/2233/2018 by 25 days. The Petitioner/Appellants have submitted applications for condonation of delay in their respective cases, providing reasons for the delay. In light of the explanations provided in these applications and in the interest of justice, the delay in all cases is hereby condoned.
3. Since the facts and questions of law involved in the RP No. 4122/2014 and all three Appeal Nos. 200 & 835 of 2015 and FA 2233 of 2018 are substantially similar, except for minor variations in Dates, Events and Development Scheme, the Revision Petition and all three First Appeal are being disposed of by this common Order. To facilitate clarity and convenience, Revision Petition No. 4211/2014 is considered as the primary / lead case, with the facts outlined below being extracted from First Appeal No. 810/2010.
4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum & State Commission.
5. In brief the facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he along with other co-owners was in possession of land measuring 10 Bighas, situated at village Gill-I, Hadbast No.263, Tehsil, and District Ludhiana. This land was acquired by OP-1 for its 'Model Town Extension Part-II' Development Scheme, vide notification issued under Section 36 on 03.06.1973. Following the acquisition, OP-1 invited applications for allotment of plot from landowners. He, being a Local Displaced Person ("LDP"), applied for plot allotment as an LDP on 21.07.1987, depositing Rs.500/- as application fee within the stipulated period. Accordingly, the Complainant falls under the category of LDP as per the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964.
6. Despite repeated visits to OP-1's office, the Complainant faced delays and excuses in allotment. The Complainant was also filed an Application on 26.06.1998 and personally visited the office of OP-1. Consequently, OP1 issued letters dated 05.10.2000 and 19.07.2006 to him requesting to submit necessary documents. Even after fulfilling all requirements, no action was taken by OP-1. The Complainant's last attempt was made on 04.02.2009 by submitting documents to the Director, Local Bodies of Punjab, Chandigarh (OP-2). Despite being legally entitled to plot allotment as LDP at the reserve price he did not receive the allotment. He, however, learnt that similarly situated other co-owners received plot allotments through their attorneys. Additionally, between 1993 and 1995, scrutiny by the Local Govt. Department confirmed the Complainant's LDP status and the committee directed OP-1 for priority-based plot allotment. Yet, OP-1 resorted to selective allotment, violating rules and policies. Despite complying with OP-1's requests, no plot was allotted to the Complainant. Being aggrieved, he through the SPA filed a CC No. 325 of 2009 before the District Forum and prayed that the OPs be directed to allot the plot as per the land acquired in any developed scheme of OP-1 on the reserve price which was prevalent on 21.07.1987 and to pay Rs.3 Lakhs as compensation for escalation cost, labour and material for construction; Rs.1 Lakh as compensation for harassment along with interest @24% and Rs.500/- deposited on 21.07.1987.
7. In reply, OP-1 raised several preliminary objections and asserted that the complaint was not filed through a competent person and Shri Bikramjit Singh lacked authority to file the complaint on behalf of Shri Harchand Singh. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further, OP-1 contended that the complaint was filed in 2009 as regards the land acquired in 1973, was time-barred by limitation. OP-1 disputed his status as an LDP and asserted that in the present case, the rules of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1983 apply and these preclude the Complainant from entitlement to a plot. OP-1 emphasized that mere deposit of Rs.500/- by him did not confer entitlement to plot allotment without permission from the competent authority. Denying any deficiency in service, OP-1 contended that the Complainant was not a consumer. On merits, OP-1 admitted the Complainant's ownership of 3 Bighas, 7 Biswas-6B (10179 Sq Yds), asserting that as a co-sharer, like other co-sharers, he was entitled to only one plot, which was already allotted to another co-sharer. OP-1 highlighted that applications for allotment of plots to LDPs were invited from 19.12.1974 to 18.01.1975, but he did not submit any application, thus barring the complaint due to his own actions. OP-1 argued against the applicability of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964 in this case. Additionally, OP-2 did not contest the complaint before the District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte. OP-1 sought dismissal of the complaint with costs.
8. The District Forum in its Order dated 13.04.2010 Dismissed the complaint citing time barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Appellant / Complainant filed an Appeal No. 810/2010 before the State Commission. The State Commission in its Order dated 26.03.2014 allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order passed by the District Forum, consequently allowed the Complaint in favour of the Complainant with the following observation: -
"20. The case of the appellant is squarely covered under the above authorities of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The land of appellant was acquired and he was owner of the acquired land as per Jamabandi EX.C-2 and this fact is also admitted by respondent no. 1. The appellant moved application Ex. C-3 on 21.07.1987 and deposited the fee of Rs.500/- vide receipt Ex.C-3 and the said deposit was made as per the order of the Chairman dated 21.07.1987 which is mentioned in the receipt itself. This "shows that the necessary permission from the competent authority was taken. The appellant moved applications Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 and Ex.G7 for allotment of the plot. Vide Ex.C-8, he was asked by the Executive Officer of respondent no.1, to appear on 17.10.2000 after 3.00 P.M, alongwith documents. Vide letter Ex.G-9, the Executive Officer of respondent no.1 again asked the appellant to come present alongwith necessary documents.
21. To rebut this evidence, respondent no.1 has tendered the affidavit Ex.RW-1/1 of Sh. Jatinder Singh, Executive Officer, which is nothing, but the attested copy of the written version and no other evidence has been led. The District Forum has altogether ignored the facts and the law regarding allotment of the plot to the Local Displaced Persons and the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
22. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned" order under appeal dated 13.04.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant is allowed and respondent No.1 Trust is directed to allot a plot as per the land acquired by it in the Development Scheme of respondent No.1, on reserve price as prevalent on 21.07.1987 and if the plot is not available in the scheme for which the land was acquired then the respondent no. 1 shall allot a plot in another scheme which is equally developed scheme of respondent no.1 Trust.
23. The appellant has also suffered lot of harassment, mental tension and financial loss, as he has been visiting the officials of respondent no.1 for the last more than 26 years and is entitled to compensation. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the appellant.
9. Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner / OP No. 1-Ludhiana Improvement Trust has filed the instant Revision Petition raising mainly the following grounds:-
The State Commission failed to note that the complaint was barred by limitation and not accompanied by application for condonation of delay. The application for plot allotment under LDP category was from 19.12.1974 to 18.01.1975. He submitted the application 12 years later on 21.07.1987. Thus, admittedly, the cause of action on 21.07.1987 is barred by limitation by 23 years.
The Complainant's application for a plot under LDP scheme was superseded by the Punjab Town Improvement Rules, 1983, as the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964, under which the initial plot allotments were made. The scheme lapsed and there was no provision for plot allotment under the LDP scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Rules, 1983.
Mere payment of Rs. 500 by the respondent does not entitle him to plot allotment under the LDP scheme, especially when the scheme no longer exists, and he never applied for plot allotment under the LDP scheme while it was in effect. The State Commission failed to recognize that the matter concerns allotment of plots under a specific scheme, making the respondent not a consumer as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The State Commission failed to fully examine the High Court order directing allotment at prevailing rates as of the date when the writ petition was filed by the petitioner before the High Court. The State Commission's directive to allot the plot to the respondent under the LDP scheme at the rates prevailing in 1987 is incorrect, as the LDP scheme did not exist at that time, and any such allotment should have been at prevailing rates, not those mentioned in 1987.
10. In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Trust has reiterated the grounds of the petition. He strongly argued that the State Commission incorrectly relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13.05.2011 in CWP 12477/2011 and 30.08.2012 in LPA No. 821 of 2012. He asserted that the amount of Rs. 500/- deposited by the Complainant in 1987 was merely application money and not earnest money for plot allotment under the LDP category. As he was a co-sharer in the acquired land, for which a plot was already allotted, he was not entitled to further allotment under the LDP category. Moreover, the allotment of plots at present should have been based on prevailing rates, not those mentioned in 1987. He argued that the Complainant did not qualify as a Consumer under the Act and thus was not entitled to any relief. Citing legal precedents, it was emphasized that a person who applied for allotment but did not receive it did not fall under the definition of a Consumer. He emphasised the delay in filing the complaint and asserted that it was not the responsibility of the Trust to ensure allotment to a locally displaced person when the application was unreasonably delayed. Further, despite express directions, he failed to approach the appellant Trust in a timely manner to prove the claim and opting to file the complaint is an afterthought. The Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964, under which the scheme for allotment of plots was governed, had been superseded by the Punjab Town Improvement Rules 1983, making provisions for allotment under the LDP scheme obsolete. The impugned judgments suffered from jurisdictional errors and material irregularity. The State Commission partly allowed the complaint, exercising powers akin to those of the High Court under Article 226, despite the appellant trust being a public organization working for the public benefit and not being negligent in its duties. Legal precedents and definitions of terms were cited to reinforce these arguments.
11. The Counsel for the Petitioner cited the following judgments to bolster their aforementioned arguments: -
Delhi Development Authority vs Parveen Kumar, reported as 2015 5 CPJ 36.
Pawan Kumar Puri and others vs. Improvement Trust and others, reported as 2003 3 RCR civil 824.
Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh, reported as MANU/SC/ 04/17/2010.
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another vs Katiiji and Others Haryana Urban Development Authority through its chief administrator vs Ms Jagdish Chandra Varma, reported as 2010 3 CPC 138.
Delhi Development Authority vs Manohar Lal, reported as 19971 CPC 43.
VK Appliances vs New India Insurance Company, reported as IV(2013)CPJ419(NC) Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co v National Insurance Co. Ltd, reported as III MANU/SC/1165/2009 State Bank of India v B.S. Agricultural Industries, reported as II MANU/SC/0420/2009.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Sampoorna Singh, reported as 1999 (3) SCC 494 Sheo Wanti and Ors vs State of Punjab and Ors, reported as 2002 (3) RCR(CIVIL) 262.
12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant reiterated the facts of the case and argued that the claim that the Complainants are not consumers is baseless. He asserted that they are local displaced persons who have deposited earnest money. Under the rules, they are entitled to plot allotment. Rule 7(ii) of The Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by the Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 mandates plot allotment to all local displaced persons. With respect to delay in filing of the complaint, it was argued that the government instructed the Trust to consider all applications, and complaints were filed when this was not done despite instructions. Therefore, there is no question of delay with respect to a continuing cause of action. And mere late deposit of earnest money, he cited certain judgments indicating that late deposits are not fatal. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on following judgments in support of his arguments:-
Whether the Complainants are consumers?
Jangir Singh vs. State of Punjab; CC No. 12 of 2008 Decided on 28.01.2009, Point no. 4 discussed at page 10 Improvement Trust vs Rajinder Singh; RP No. 2165 of 2014 Karnail Kaur vs. P.U.D.A; 2005(1) CLT 571 Earnest Money deposited- Potential Consumers Para 4, Page 28 Late filing of complainant
4. Lata Constructions vs. Dr. (SC) 380, Para 4 page 26,27 Ramesh Chander; 2000 AIR (pg 30-33) S B Kishore vs. Union of India; 1991 AIR (SC) 90, Para 2 LIT vs Jangir Singh, FA no. 261 of 2009 Page 57 Late deposit of earnest money
7. State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh, LPA no. 821 of 2012 DB Gurdev Kaur vs. State of Punjab, CWP no. 17248 of 1999, Page 37 Which of the Rules are applicable?
Ranjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, CWP no. 940 of 2007;
Jagdish Rai vs. State of Punjab; 1994(3) PLR 508, page 49.+ Limitation cannot be condoned.
Basawaraj and anr Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer; 2014 AIR; (SC) 746, headnote B, Para 11 to 15.
Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs. Surinder Singh and anr; 2015 SCC (online) NCDRC 82 Therefore, the appeals/ RPs are time-barred. Condonation of delay is sought on concocted facts against legal opinion of advocates. Secondly, in Harpreet Singh case and Harbans Kaur case, plots have been allotted.
13. Vide order dated 26.02.2015, this Commission dismissed the Revision Petition No.4211 of 2014 against the Respondent No.2-State of Punjab, through Principal Secretary on the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Top of Form
14. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.
15. It is uncontested position that some land of the Complainant was acquired and there was no dispute with respect to the land transaction and the compensation as per law. Therefore, with respect to the land acquisition, the matter is already settled. Now, the further issue is the grievance of the Complainant is that the acquisition authority did not allot the plot to him as per the policy. Thus, the main issue at this stage is whether the Complainant is a consumer with respect to the dispute in question? If so, whether he is entitled for the allotment of a plot being a Local Displaced Person under Ludhiana Improvement Trust's scheme?
16. Adverting to the first issue, the definition of the term 'Consumer' as contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1986 and now repealed by Section 2 (7) (i) & (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads:
(7) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause,--
(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;
(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing; (Emphasis supplied)
17. The Complainant contended that he fulfilled all necessary requirements and deposited the requisite fees for plot allotment as per the rules in effect at the time of application. On the other hand, the Ludhiana Improvement Trust asserted that the Complainant's application was made after an unreasonable delay and that the rules governing plot allotment had changed, rendering the Complainant ineligible under the new regulations. Therefore, the central issue involves determining the Complainant's entitlement for allotment of a plot under the applicable rules and regulations and the scope for adjudication under the Act.
18. In the case at hand, the Complainants, who are landowners, asserted their entitlement to plot allotment under the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964, as local displaced persons. The Ludhiana Improvement Trust argued that the complainants do not qualify as consumers. Admittedly, the transaction between the parties involved a payment of Rs.500 at the time of applying for the plot allotment, but no plot was allotted, and there was no consideration paid for it.
19. A local displaced person under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 is someone who, due to the establishment of the Dominions of India and Pakistan or civil disturbances in areas now part of Pakistan, has been displaced from their place of residence after March 1, 1947, and subsequently resides in India. This Act aims to speedily acquire land for the resettlement of such displaced individuals. However, it's important to note that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 determines compensation and rehabilitation benefits for displaced people based on individual ownership of the acquired land. It does not recognize collective rights, which means that people who have traditionally depended on common property resources for generations may not be entitled to compensation under this Act.
20. The Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964 play a crucial role in the context of local displaced persons. Let's delve into the details:
i. Definition of Local Displaced Person: o According to these rules, a local displaced person is someone whose land was acquired by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust for the execution of a scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (referred to as "the Act"). o Essentially, if an individual's land was taken over by the Trust for implementing a development scheme, they fall under this category. ii. Land Acquisition and Disposal:
o The Trust acquired 8.4 acres of land owned by the respondents (who were joint holders) in the month of March 1975. This land was acquired for constructing four-story flats.
o Under the scheme prepared by the Trust, individual plots were not carved out; instead, the focus was on constructing flats1.
iii. Rules for Local Displaced Persons:
o Rule 5 (ii) of the 1964 Rules specifies that the Trust must fix a concessional price at which land comprised in a scheme will be sold to a local displaced person.
o The concessional price should not be less than the cost price of the land, which includes the estimated cost of acquisition plus development charges, etc. o Additionally, not more than one plot of land (when demarcated into plots) can be sold to a local displaced person1.
iv. Subsequent Developments:
o In 1983, the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 were promulgated. These rules stipulated that only one plot could be allotted to the joint holders of a Khata in the acquired land.
o Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (the joint Khata holders of the acquired land) requested the State of Punjab to allot one plot to each of them.
o The Trust's stance was that the respondents could be allotted flats, as no individual plots had been carved out in the scheme1.
21. In summary, the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964 provide guidelines for the sale of land to local displaced persons, ensuring fair compensation and rehabilitation within the context of development schemes. Rule 7(ii) of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 specifies the maximum area of the plot that can be allotted to an LDP. The maximum area of the plot allotted as LDP can only be 500 square yards. The OP has also contended that the plot to be allotted under the policy has already been allocated and the Complainant is not entitled for the same.
22. The mandate of the Consumer Protection Act is safeguarding consumers' rights and interests in transactions related to goods and services. It does not address the scope for resolution of disputes with respect to substantive rights. The dispute in question pertains to entitlement of the applicant for allotment of a plot. It is not the case of deficiency in service after the Allotment. The resolution of dispute pertaining to the substantive right of entitlement for allotment of a plot to the Complainant falls outside the purview of a "Consumer Dispute" as defined by the Consumer Protection Act. As a result, the Complainants cannot be termed as consumers under the Act, and specific protections and remedies provided for consumers in the Consumer Protection Act were not applicable to the circumstances of this case.
Top of Form
23. As a result, the impugned orders passed by the learned State Commission are set aside, and the complaints filed by the Complainants are dismissed. The Complainants are granted liberty to pursue legal remedies through the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the RP No.4211 of 2014, FA Nos.200 & 838 of 2015 and FA No. 2233 of 2018 are also disposed of accordingly.
24. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
25. If any amount deposited in all the matters, the same be refunded along with accrued interest, if any, to the depositor.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER