National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vijay Kumar Singh vs Rana Cooperative Housing Society & 2 ... on 12 March, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3916 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 14/09/2017 in Appeal No. 992/2004 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O. LT. BUDDH SINGH, R/O. 116/58, RANA PRATAP NAGAR, KANPUR UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RANA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY & 2 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SH. RAM PAL SINGH, 114/88, VINAYAKPUR DISTRICT-KANPUR UTTAR PRADESH 2. AVAS ADHIKARI AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH 3. SAHAYAK AVAS AYUKT UP AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, 104, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG, LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Advocate.
Dated : 12 Mar 2020 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The petitioner/complainant purchased a plot of land from the respondent Rana Cooperative Housing Society on 17.02.1987. The Society executed sale deed of the afore-said plot in his favour on 29.01.1988. The complainant received a demand notice from Kanpur Development Authority, asking him to deposit an amount of Rs. 261500/- on the ground that the land sold to him by the Society was acquired land. The complainant thereupon approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint impleading the Society as well as the officers of UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad as the opposite parties in the complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent No. 1 primarily on the ground that the land which the society had sold to the complainant was not acquired land. It was, inter alia, stated in the reply that though the some land had been acquired by Kanpur Development Authority, the land sold to the complainant was not acquired land.
3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, R-1 Rana Cooperative Housing Society approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 14.09.2017 the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the question involved in the complaint requires extensive evidence which cannot be taken by a consumer forum.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
5. It is not in dispute that a plot of land was sold by R-1 Society to the petitioner/complainant. It is also not in dispute that the sale deed of the said plot was executed by the society in favour of the petitioner/complainant. It is also not in dispute that a demand was raised by Kanpur Development Authority upon the petitioner/complainant on the ground that the land, subject matter of the sale deed, executed by the society, in his favour was acquired land. The petitioner/complainant having already paid the price of the land to the Society it was for the Society to contest the demand raised by Kanpur Development Authority if the said demand was illegal or unjustified. Having already paid the price of the land to the Society the complainant cannot be compelled to litigate with Kanpur Development Authority by challenging the demand raised by the Authority. In any case it is only the Society which can contest the demand raised by Kanpur Development Authority since it is only the Society which knows whether the land sold by it to the complainant was acquired land or not. The complainant/petitioner being a purchaser from the Society will not be in a position to prove that the land sold to him by the Society was not acquired land. It is for the seller of the land to prove that at the time the land was sold by him it was free from any kind of encumbrance, claim, charge etc. Therefore, it is for the Society to challenge the demand raised by Kanpur Development Authority and prove in the said challenge that the land old by it to the complainant not being acquired land the demand raised by Kanpur Development Authority was illegal.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is disposed of with the following directions:-
(a) The respondent No. 1 shall either pay the amount demanded by Kanpur Development Authority from the complainant along-with interest, if any, payable on that amount or it shall challenge the said demand by initiating legal proceedings against Kanpur Development Authority and seek stay of the afore-said demand. If the demand raised by Kanpur Development Authority against the plot sold by the Society to the Complainant stayed, R-1 need not make any payment to Kanpur Development Authority, till the said stay remains in force but it will abide by the final decision of the proceedings which it may initiate against Kanpur Development Authority.
(b) If R-1 does not challenge within 60 days from today the demand raised by Kanpur Development Authority in respect of the plot sold to the complainant, it shall make payment in terms of this order. Similarly, if R-1 does not get a stay within 60 days from today against the demand raised by Kanpur Development Authority in respect of the subject plot or it is ultimately held in the proceedings initiated by it that the demand raised by Kanpur Development Authority was justified, R-1 Society shall pay the said demand to Kanpur Development Authority along-with interest etc. in terms of the final order passed in the said proceedings.
(c) There shall be no order as to costs. ......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER