National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ram Kumar vs Municipal Committee Jhajjar on 18 September, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2007 OF 2007
(Against the order
dated 07.03.2007
in Appeal/ Complaint No.1982/2004
of
the State Commission,
Haryana)
RAM KUMAR
R/O MOHALLA DAMDAMA
JHAJJAR, TEHSIL &
DISTRICT JHAJJAR,
HARYANA
........ Petitioner
Vs.
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE JHAJJAR
THROUGH
ITS CHAIRMAN
SMT.
USHA BANSAL
R/O
JHAJJAR, TEHSIL & DISTRICT,
JHAJJAR,
HARYANA
SECRETARY,
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
JHAJJAR
R/O
JHAJJAR, TEHSIL & DISTRICT,
JHAJJAR,
HARYANA
........ Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner
: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate
For the
Respondent : Mr. Hardik Luthra, Advocate
Pronounced on :_18.09.2009
ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Petitioner Ram Kumar, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short District Forum) is before us in this revision petition to challenge the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula (for short State Commission) dated 7.3.2007 vide which the State Commission has reversed the order dated 15.4.2004 passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
To put succinctly, the facts of the case are that in order to construct some shops in Dharamshala of which, the petitioner/complainant along with his brother claimed to be the owner in possession, a plan was submitted for its sanction by the Municipal Committee. Necessary formalities were completed and the requisite fee was deposited but despite the expiry of the statutory period of 60 days, the plan was not sanctioned. A complaint, therefore, came to be filed before the District Forum who on appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties held that the respondents/opposite had raised no objection to the sanctioning of the site plan nor had they informed the complainant with regard to their decision in the matter within a period of 60 days and, therefore, there was deficiency in service on part of the respondents/opposite parties. The District Forum, therefore, directed the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for harassment/mental agonies/losses, out of which Rs.3000/- was to be paid by the Chairman, Municipal Committee Jhajjar and Rs.1000/- was to be paid by the Chairman, Municipal Committee Jhajjar from their personal pocket failing which the complainant was to be entitled to get interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of the order. When this order of the District Forum was challenged in the appeal by the respondents/opposite parties before the State Commission, it was set aside by the State Commission, holding that the District forum had failed to consider that as per the Jamabandi, which is the record of rights for the year 1999-2000, the ownership of the site which comprises in Khasra Nos.935/6, 942, 939 and 938/1 ; part of the land was owned by Custodian Department and the order portion was owned by some other land owners and, therefore, the petitioner/complainant was not the sole and exclusive owner of the site. He was, thus, not entitled to raise the construction.
The State Commission, further , noticed that the Tehsildar (Sales) had also directed the respondents/opposite parties not to sanction the site plan which direction was binding on the respondents/opposite parties Municipal Committee.
Aggrieved against this order of the State Commission dismissing his complaint that the petitioner/complainant has filed this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has taken us through the provision of Section 205 (2) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 which reads as under :-
When the erection or re-erection of a building is likely, in the opinion of the Committee or the Executive Officer, as the case may be, to interfere with the enforcement of a scheme proposed under Section 203, the Committee may refuse its sanction, and in such case shall communicate its refusal in writing together with the ground therefore, to the applicant within sixty days of the receipt of the application, and the applicant may thereafter by written notice require the Committee to proceed with the preparation of the proposed scheme with all possible speed. The application shall be deemed to have been sanctioned if an order of refusal is not passed by the Committee, or the Executive Officer as the case may be, within the time specified above...
On the strength of this provision, the counsel has vehemently argued that the site plan is deemed to have been sanctioned since neither any objection nor any communication was addressed in time to the petitioner/complainant. The counsel, therefore, contends that the State Commission has clearly erred in holding that the respondents/opposite parties were not deficient in rendering service. Contending further that the District Forum vide the well reasoned order has clearly held that the respondents/opposite parties were deficient in rendering service, he argues that the same deserves to be up-held.
Learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioner/complainant has not come clean on the subject inasmuch as ; firstly, he had himself enclosed a copy of the Jamabandi which indicated that the complainant was a co-owner along with many co-owners of the Shamlat land meaning thereby that the petitioner/complainant was not the exclusive owner of the land on which shops were sought to be constructed. Secondly, the Tehsildar (Sales) had also written a letter on 20.11.2003 directing the respondents/opposite parties not to sanction the site plan and thirdly, also that the complainant had been informed about the dispute with regard to the ownership and rejection of the site plan within the period of 60 days vide their letter dated 29.10.2003 ; thus, he contends that the order passed by the State Commission, being legal, is fully justified and warrants no interference.
On a careful perusal of the record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order passed by the State Commission needs no interference since it has correctly held that as per Jamabandi (record of rights) filed by the complainant himself, there was no exclusive ownership of the complainant over the property on which he planned to construct the shops. When the basic foundation/right did not exist, there was no question of its consideration by the Municipal Committee. Further, the Municipal Committee could not go behind the direction issued to it by the Tehsildar (Sales). Finally, with regard to the statutory requirement of approving/rejecting a site plan within a period of 60 days as prescribed under Section 205 (2) of the Haryana Municipal Act ; on which learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress, there has been no breach since the respondents/opposite parties had replied to him on 29.10.2003 within the prescribed period of 60 days that the plan cannot be sanctioned as he had no exclusive right over the property.
Thus, on no count, it can be said that the respondents/opposite parties Municipal Committee has been deficient in any manner. The revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed, however, with no order as to cost.
Sd/ (B.N.P. SINGH, J) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/ (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER St/34