State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurpreet Singh vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 16 August, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.407 of 2015
Date of Institution : 16.04.2015
Order Reserved on: 11.08.2017
Date of Decision : 16.08.2017
Gurpreet Singh S/o S. Avtar Singh R/o H.No.19639, Street no.6, Ajit
Road, Bhatinda and now R/o 2137, Apartment-3, Skylark, C-T,
Union City, California-94587-USA.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Chairman.
.....Respondent/opposite party
First Appeal against order dated
15.12.2014 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Hitesh Sood, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. G.C. Garg, Advocate ............................................ J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 15.12.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana (in short the 'District Forum'), disposing off the complaint of the complainant by directing OP to consider and dispose off the application of S. Avtar Singh dated 09.04.1985 i.e. father of the complainant, if the same is maintainable by law and not barred by limitation and the complainant is held entitled to pursue the same in accordance with law as well as in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case reported as First Appeal No.407 of 2015 2 "Jarnail Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others-
2011(1)RCR(Civil)-915. Respondent of this appeal is opposite party (OP) in the complaint before the District Forum and appellant of this appeal is complainant therein and they be referred as such herein after for the sake of convenience.
2. The complainant instituted complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that his father Avtar Singh was owner of land measuring 14 kanal 18 marlas, bearing khasra nos.59/4/4,7 and 14/1 of Village Sunet, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, which was acquired by OP for development of Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Scheme by paying compensation. The father of complainant became local displaced person, as defined in rule 2(b) of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964. Rule 5(ii) of the Rules ibid mandates that Trust shall fix a concessional price at which land comprised in the scheme will be sold to the local displaced person (LDP), which shall not be less than cost of acquisition of land. Rule 6 of the above rules states that Chairman shall ask the Lands Officer to issue public notice in an appropriate form in the manner prescribed by rules 9, 10 and 11, inviting applications from LDPs in form A. Rule 8 ibid lays down that the left out land after allotment to LDPs and other reserve categories may be disposed off by public auction. Father of complainant was the local displaced person. The OP have not given any publicity and individual notices to LDPs to invite application for allotment of plots in preferential category to them, due to which First Appeal No.407 of 2015 3 father of complainant did not apply for a plot. Similarly, many other land owners, whose lands were acquired, could not apply within time. On protesting, OP allowed his father and other land owners to file their applications alongwith amount of Rs.500/- for allotment of plot. Avtar Singh, the father of complainant, filed an application on 09.04.1985 and deposited earnest money of Rs.500/- on 06.06.1985 with OP, which was accepted by OP. The OP had allotted preferential category plots to many other persons whose land was also acquired, as LDPs. When father of complainant approached OP after completing entire formalities, it asked him to appear on 23.01.1998, vide letter dated 15.01.1998 before the Executive Officer-II of OP. OP again asked father of complainant to furnish affidavit and indemnity bond as per specimen, vide letter dated 24.03.1999. Father of complainant who applied for allotment of plot as LDP, executed will on 15.07.2009 in favour of complainant and complainant stepped into his shoes after his death on 17.04.2010. The complainant being legal heir of Avtar Singh is entitled to allotment of plot as LDP. The OP allotted plot no.82-A, 129 acre scheme on 26.10.1990 to Sohan Singh, who was also an LDP, although he deposited the earnest money and application in 8/1990. Mrs. Punjab Kaur, LDP deposited her application and earnest money in 8/1990 and she was allotted plot no.143-F, 24 Acre scheme, Ludhiana on 04.12.1990 by OP. The facts of complaint of complainant are pari materia with the facts of Gurdev Singh's case, who instead of approaching the Civil Court or the Consumer Forum, First Appeal No.407 of 2015 4 filed appeal before the Local Govt. Department Punjab u/s 72-E of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Punjab Govt. accepted his appeal, vide order dated 04.07.2008 and ordered allotment of plot of 400 square yards to him on the then prevalent reserve price. In his case, the delay was more than 25 years. It was further averred that complainant has not been allotted any plot by OP depriving him of a house to reside. The complainant has not been intimated about the status of his repeated letters, reminders, representations and personal visits and result of his interview by the OP. The complainant, thus, prayed that OP be directed to allot plot measuring 500 square yards in 550 acre scheme on account of acquisition of land under the Special Clause and to execute agreement and sale deed in his favour by way of delivery of possession. The complainant further prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for escalation of cost and Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation of mental harassment and Rs.55,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. Preliminary objections were raised by OP that complaint is not maintainable, as complaint relates to immovable property, which is not competent under Consumer Forum Act before the Forum. The procedure of Consumer Forum is summary in nature and matter needs to be relegated to Civil Court for adjudication involving involute matters. The complaint is barred by time. Land of Avtar Singh was acquired in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Scheme on the basis of notification dated First Appeal No.407 of 2015 5 12.02.1971 under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The scheme was sanctioned on 28.10.1972 under Section 42 o the Act 1922. At the time of acquisition of land of Avtar Singh, 1964 Rules were applicable known as the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules 1964, framed by the LIT under Section 74 of Act 1922. The land owner was required to apply in form A for the allotment of site, as LDP under the above Rules. In 1975, new rules came into force known as utilization of land and allotment of plots Improvement Rules 1975 framed by State Government under Section 73 of the Act 1922. In 1983, again new Rules came into force framed by the State Government under Section 73 of the Act 1922, which repealed the rules of 1975. In the Rules of 1983, the limitation of three years was fixed for applying allotment of plot as local displaced person from the date of taking of the possession by the Trust of the acquired land on form A, as prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1983. It was further averred that Avtar Singh had applied for the allotment of plot as LDP, vide application dated 09.04.1985 and he was allowed to deposit the earnest money of Rs.500/-, vide orders dated 31.05.1985 subject to the merits of the application and availability of plots. Avtar Singh deposited earnest money of Rs.500/- vide receipt no.82031 dated 06.06.1985, after 14 years of the first notification of the scheme and more than 10 years after the passing of the award by the land acquisition collector and calling of the applications for applying for LDP plot category which were called between 19.12.1974 to 20.01.1975. The application was First Appeal No.407 of 2015 6 badly hit by latches and delay. Avtar Singh LDP since deceased had not applied for allotment of plot as LDP on prescribed proforma nor filed his affidavit under the Rule. It was further averred that where oustees applied for a plot after 10 years, the application is hit by delay and latches and merits dismissal after coming into force of the Rules of 1983. Rules of 1975, has been repealed by Rules 1983. The complainant has not been rendered shelterless as alleged with the acquisition of his land. The allotment of LDP plot is not a matter of right. As per Section 26 and 27 of the Act of 1922 only that person is entitled to be rehoused in the rehousing scheme whose dwelling house/shop of the oustee has been taken into possession. The claim of complainant does not fall under the purview of Consumer Court, as he is not a consumer. On merits, OP averred that signatures of Avtar Singh on will dated 15.07.2009 did not tally with his signatures available on application dated 09.04.1985. It was further averred that simply applying for the allotment of plot as LDP and deposit of earnest money for that purpose does not create any vested right in favour of the applicant. The complainant failed to complete the formalities for consideration of name as LDP for allotment of plot. The OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-17 and Ex.C11A, C13A and C15A and closed the evidence. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Harpreet Singh Ex.R-A on the record On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum First Appeal No.407 of 2015 7 disposed off the complaint of the complainant, as referred to above. Aggrieved by above order, complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the file of the case. It has been brought to our notice during arguments by counsel for OP that vide order passed by the Chairman Improvement Trust Ludhiana, copy of which is placed on record during arguments, the application of Avtar Singh since deceased has been rejected for consideration for allotment of plot being barred by time and latches. Since, this is the vital document being the supervening event, hence it is taken note of by us by placing it on the record for effective adjudication of the matter. Application of Avtar Singh since deceased father of complainant for allotment of plot has been rejected by the Chairman Improvement Trust primarily on the ground that the Improvement Trust had taken the possession of acquired land and the applications from LDPs were invited from 01.01.1975 to 31.01.1975 under LDP category. Avtar Singh had not applied within time from 01.01.1975 to 31.01.1975 and rather applied on 06.06.1985 vide receipt no.82031 after lapse of 14 years. Keeping in view this rejection of the application of Avtar Singh father of complainant since deceased, being barred by time by Chairman of Improvement Trust, we proceed to decide the controversy of this case on the basis of evidence on the file. Pleadings of both the parties have been perused by us. The complainant pleaded in para First Appeal No.407 of 2015 8 no.6 of the complaint that his father filed application on 09.04.1985 by depositing earnest money of Rs.500/- on 06.06.1985 for allotment of plot, as a local displaced person. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for Improvement Trust before us is that applications for allotment of plots to LDPs were invited from 19.12.1974 to 20.01.1975, but Avtar Singh since deceased father of complainant failed to apply for the same. Simple deposit of earnest money and applying for allotment of plot would not create a vested right in him for the same. The submission of OP is that Avtar Singh applied for the allotment of plot on 09.04.1985, as per his application by depositing earnest money of Rs.500/-, vide receipt no.82031 dated 06.06.1985 after 14 years of first notification and after more than 10 years after passing of award by the land acquisition collector and calling of the applications for applying for LDP plot, which were called between 19.12.1974 to 20.01.1975. His application was highly belated and badly hit by latches and he has lost his right by efflux of time. This is the main controversy brewing between the parties in this case.
6. We find that Avtar Singh since deceased applied for allotment of plot as LDP in the preferential category, vide his application on 09.04.1985 by depositing earnest money of Rs.500/- on 06.06.1985. At the time of acquisition of land of Avtar Singh, Rules of 1964 were in force. Avtar Singh since deceased was to apply on Form A for allotment of plot as LDP under the Rules. This is the categorical stand of the OP that Avtar Singh since deceased has First Appeal No.407 of 2015 9 not applied for the allotment of the plot, as LDP when the applications therefor were invited from 19.12.1974 to 20.01.1975 on the requisite form A with requisite documents and neither deposited any application fee in the above time. He applied for the allotment of plot in the year 1985 only. By that time, on account of repeal of Rules 1975, the Punjab Town Improvement (utilization of land and allotment of plots) Rules 1983 came into force. The complainant and his father Avtar Singh since deceased were not entitled to allotment of plot, as matter of right under this LDP category, as they failed to apply within the requisite period when the applications were invited from LDPs. Similarly, depositing the amount after 14 years and moving an application would not clothe him with the right to allotment of plot. Affidavit of Harpreet Singh is Ex.R-A on the record. He stated that applicant was allowed to deposit the amount subject to the merits of his application and availability of plots. Even High Court has held in "Pawan Kumar Puri and others Vs. The Improvement Trust Batala and others" 2003(3) RCR Civil-824 that where oustees have applied for allotment of plot after lapse of 10 years, his application is hit by delay and latches and is liable to be rejected on that score. Even if allotments of plots, as LDPs have been made to other persons, it does not mean that complainant is entitled to it as a matter of right.
7. As a consequence of our above discussion, we find that Chairman Improvement Trust, pursuant to order of the District Forum Ludhiana, considered the application of Avtar Singh for allotment of First Appeal No.407 of 2015 10 plot, as local displaced person and found it barred by limitation and latches and rejected it. We have no ground to differ from the same in this appeal. The appeal of the appellant is, thus, dismissed on account of delayed application submitted by Avtar Singh since deceased father of the complainant for the allotment of plot, as LDP, which was badly hit by latches.
8. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.08.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER August 16, 2017 MM