State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Town Improvement Trust, Kapurthala vs Karamjit Singh Thind on 4 September, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1048 of 2010
Date of institution: 15.06.2010
Date of decision : 04.09.2012
Town Improvement Trust, Kapurthala through its Executive Officer.
.....Appellants
Versus
Karamjit Singh Thind s/o Late Sh.S.Gurbachan Singh resident of H.No.534,
Model Town, Kapurthala.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.04.2010
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.R.G.Sahota, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Sunil Chadha, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (in short the District Forum) vide which the letter dated 29.1.2009 was quashed and the OP was directed to allot the adjoining area to the complainant at double the price of original reserve price at which the plot was allotted to Ajit Singh and also to pay Rs.5000/- on account of mental tension and Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation.
2. The case of Karamjit Singh complainant is that the respondents floated a scheme known as Scheme No.1, Model Town, Kapurthala and First Appeal No.1048 of 2008 2 invited applications for the allotment of plots. Ajit Singh original owner applied for and was allotted 500 square yards plot No.534 for an amount of Rs.32,098. Thereafter, on an application dated 6.12.1990, the said plot was transferred in the name of the complainant. It was contended that his plot was actually in excess of 500 square yards by 57.50 square yards. The appellants have mentioned in Clause 9 of the allotment letter that the allottee is to pay for the additional land proportionately within 30 days from the date of demand. The complainant and other allottees moved an application to the appellants on 20.7.1993 and 15.03.1994 to allot the excess area to them and had, thereafter, been approaching the appellants for the same but the matter was being delayed on one pretext or the other. The meeting of the trust was held on 12.12.1994 in which the complainant also participated and it was decided that the excess area would be allotted at a price by working out average of the collector rate for the last 3 years. The contention of the complainant is that though he was entitled to the allotment at the rate at which the plot was originally allotted to him but he did not oppose the said decision, on the basis of which, a resolution No.1440 dated 31.1.1995 was passed. It was sent to the Government for sanction. However, other allottees received a letter from the appellants allotting them the land at 3 times of the rate at which the original allotment was made. The name of the complainant was, however, not included in the said list. After the allotment, the appellants withdrew the cases filed against these allottees under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. On 29.01.2009, the complainant received a letter from the appellants intimating him that the Government has agreed to allot him the excess area of 57.50 square yards on his paying a sum of Rs.3,83,400/- i.e. @ Rs.1,35,000/- per marla which was to be deposited by him within 30 days of the receipt of the letter. The First Appeal No.1048 of 2008 3 contention of the complainant is that the demand made by the appellants is illegal, discriminatory and void because the excess area to other plot holders had been allotted at lower price as per the Resolution No.1440 dated 28.3.1995. The complainant, therefore, filed the present complaint for directions to the appellants to allot him the excess area at the same rate at which the plot was originally allotted to him and also pay him Rs.50,000 as damages for mental agony and physical torture and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. The complaint was opposed by the appellants alleging that it is not maintainable, that the complaint is estopped by his act and conduct and that the complainant has illegally occupied the excess area adjoining to his plot in respect of which the proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises Act were initiated. It was admitted that Plot No.534 has been allotted to one Ajit Singh and thereafter, it was transferred in the name of the complainant. It was denied if the excess area is to be allotted at the price settled at the time of allotment of the said plot. It was admitted that a meeting of the Trust was held on 12.12.1994 but it was denied if the allottees were to be allotted the excess area at a price by working out average of the collector rate for the last proceedings 3 years. The appellants, however, admitted that a resolution No.1440 was passed by the Trust on 28.3.1995 to that effect. It was contended that the excess area to the complainant was allotted as per the guidelines issued by the Government at 1½ times of the collector rate which was Rs.90,000/- per marla.. The said proposal to allot the excess area @ Rs.1,35,000/- per marla had been approved by the Government and, therefore, they are entitled to charge the said amount. It was denied if there was any discrimination or if the appellants are guilty of unfair trade practice First Appeal No.1048 of 2008 4 and has committed any default. The appellants prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 27.04.2010 allowed the complaint in the manner stated above.The OPs have challenged the same through this appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned District Forum has directed that the additional area should be allotted to the complainant at the rate of double the price of the original reserved price at which the plot was allotted to Ajit Singh son of Attar Singh. The learned District Forum based its order on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in RSA No.2849 of 2002, Town Improvement Trust, Kapurthala Versus Kamlesh Kumar, a copy of which has been produced as Ex.C35. A perusal of the facts of the case show that the complainant-respondent of that case was owner of certain land which was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Kapurthala for establishing a colony known as Scheme No.2. Kamlesh Kumar applied for the allotment of a plot as a local displaced person. He filed a civil suit which was decided in his favour and the appeal was dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court reproduced Rule 4 of Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 and held that he was a local displaced person and in view of Rule 4, he was entitled to the allotment of a plot. The Hon'ble High Court then referred to Rule 6 (iii) with respect to the sale price First Appeal No.1048 of 2008 5 of the plot and came to the conclusion that in the case of plots measuring 500 square yards, the sale price would be double the reserve sale price. It was on the basis of these facts that the Hon'ble High Court held that the Improvement Trust, Kapurthala can demand double the reserve price for the allotment of the plot to local displaced persons. However, in the present case, the facts are not similar. The complainant-respondent, in this case, is not a local displaced person nor the said Rules are applicable to him. He could not demand the allotment at double the reserve price because that provision is applicable only to the local displaced persons. The learned District Forum, therefore, wrongly applied the authority to this case which was not, at all, applicable and the finding recorded on its basis cannot sustain.
8. The appellants admitted in para 7 of the reply that a meeting of the Trust was held on 12.12.1994 and it was decided that the allottees who have in their possession additional/excess area, than the original allotment shall be allotted the said additional/excess area at the price by working out average of the collector rates for the last 3 years. It was also admitted that the said report dated 12.12.1994 was adopted by the Improvement Trust vide Resolution No.1440 dated 28.3.1995. In this manner, the Improvement Trust, Kapurthala was under a legal obligation to charge from the complainant at the rate as determined in the Resolution No.1440 dated 28.3.1995. The learned District Forum in a number of cases have passed orders in accordance with that resolution but in the present case, a different view was taken by applying an authority which has no relevance to the facts of the present case.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum needs modification. First Appeal No.1048 of 2008 6 We, accordingly partly allow the appeal and modify the impugned order to the effect that the Improvement Trust, Kapurtala would charge from the complainant the price calculated as the average price of preceding 3 years collector rate for the excess area in possession of the complainant in view of resolution dated 28.3.2005. Rest of the order is confirmed. In the peculiar facts of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.3,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 15.06.2010. This amount of Rs.3,500/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to the respondent-complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER September 04, 2012.
Paritosh