State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amritsar Improvement Trust vs Kartar Kaur on 18 October, 2011
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.312 of 2005
Date of institution: 25.02.2005
Date of decision : 18.10.2011
Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar through its Chairman.
.....Appellants
Versus
Smt.Kartar Kaur widow of S.Swaya Singh care of 23, East Mohan Nagar, 100
Feet Road, Amritsar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 22.11.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Rishi Raj, Advocate for
Sh.Puneet Jindal, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
This order will dispose of 3 appeals namely First Appeal No.312 of 2005 (Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar v. Smt.Kartar Kaur), First Appeal No.313 of 2005 (Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar v. Shri Jaswant Singh Bhatia) and First Appeal No.494 of 2005 (Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar v. M/s Jasjit Brothers) as the questions of law and facts involved in all these appeals are identical. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.312 of 2005 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal. VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT
2. The respondent was the tenant in the building commonly known as Malwai Bunga in property No.48/3 (443-III-8) situated at Chowk Ghanta Ghar, Amritsar. Previously, her husband Swaya Singh was running the business in the First Appeal No.312 of 2005 2 name of Akali Kirpan Factory and after his death, the respondent had started running the business to earn her livelihood by way of self employment. This property was originally belonged to the erstwhile State of Patiala but after the merger of PEPSU in the State of Punjab, the property known as Malwai Bunga came to be owned by PWD (B & R), Punjab. Therefore, the respondent was paying the rent to PWD (B & R), Punjab.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellants had framed the development scheme of Ghanta Ghar, Amritsar under the provisions of Section 3 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 (in short "the Act") and the notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on 11.4.1969. The final notification was published on 10.10.1969. As a result of this acquisition, the respondent was ousted from her acquired property. The possession of this land was taken by the appellants on 2.1.1973. The respondent was entitled to the allotment of a plot in lieu of the land where she was running her business and which was acquired by the appellants. After the compensation amount was paid to the respondent, she had applied for the alternative accommodation i.e. the plot/showroom as was promised by the appellants.
4. It was further pleaded that the respondent was pursuing the matter with the appellants but no alternative plot/showroom was allotted to her till 1986. Thereafter, the respondent had filed CWP No.3982 of 1986 in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh. It was accepted and the appellants were directed to consider the claim of the respondent according to her eligibility in term of Rule 6(1) of the Act. These directions were given by the Hon'ble high Court in a bunch of civil writ petitions but the main judgment recorded in CWP No.1426 of 1985.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellants had issued the letter dated 19.1.1990 to the respondent by which she was informed that the form filled up by her was found in order. Certain affidavits/indemnity bonds were demanded. The respondent complied with these directions. The appellants complied with the First Appeal No.312 of 2005 3 directions of the Hon'ble High Court partly and plot No.23, East Mohan Nagar, 100 feet Road, Amritsar was allotted to the respondent for establishing a factory over there. However, no alternative site/plot was allotted for establishing a showroom. The respondent served the legal notice dated 22.1.2003 for allotment of the site/plot for establishing a showroom but to no effect.
6. It was further pleaded that the respondent again filed CWP No.4139 of 2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh for direction to the respondent for allotment of commercial plot/showroom to the respondent. This writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court with the direction to the appellants to decide the legal notice sent by the respondent to the appellants by passing a speaking order and keeping in view of the relevant laws/rules and regulations on the subject. This legal notice was to be decided within a period of 3 months after the receipt of a copy of that order. The respondent immediately also submitted another representation to the appellants along with a certified copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No.4139 of 2003 but the appellants failed to do so. Then, the respondent filed the contempt petition (COCP No.1400 of 2003). The appellants felt annoyed but they had to pass the order in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. As a result, the appellants passed order dated 4.2.2004 and held that 1983 rules were applicable and the respondent was not entitled to any plot and the representation/legal notice of the respondent was rejected. Hence, the complaint for setting aside the order dated 4.2.2004 and for directions to the appellants for allotment of an alternative plot/showroom. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS
7. The appellants filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the respondent was not a consumer. Since the respondent was a tenant, therefore, she was not entitled to the alternative accommodation as per 1983 Rules. The respondent had not raised any objection for more than 30 years. The plea of the First Appeal No.312 of 2005 4 respondent has already been rejected by the Government of Punjab. It was denied if the respondent was running any business in the disputed property. Therefore, the acquired property cannot be treated as commercial property.
8. It was further pleaded that all the persons whose property was acquired have been paid compensation. It was denied if the appellants had promised to allot any plot to the local displaced persons whose land was acquired. The matter was already decided by the Hon'ble High Court as the respondent had filed the contempt petition against the appellants in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh. Therefore, the present complaint was pre-mature.
9. It was further pleaded that the directions issued to the appellants was for passing a speaking order. The appellants have passed a speaking order and it has been held that the respondent being a tenant was not entitled to the allotment of the alternative plot/accommodation. It was denied if the respondent was entitled to any other plot. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM
10. The respondent filed her affidavit Ex.C1 and also filed documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Jugal Kishore Sharma, Chairman of the appellants as Ex.R1. The appellants also proved document Ex.R2.
11. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 22.11.2004 and the order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the appellants was set aside. The appellants were directed to allot an alternative plot/showroom to the respondent at appropriate place preferably at or near the place where the alternative accommodation has been allotted to the local displaced persons under the concerned scheme. The appellants were also directed to ensure that the plot/showroom must be free from all kinds of litigation/encumbrance and it be allotted at the reserved price existing at the time when the property of the respondent was acquired. Rs.50,000/- were also awarded as compensation for mental/physical harassment.
First Appeal No.312 of 2005 5
12. Hence, this appeal.
First Appeal No.313 of 2005
13. This complaint was filed by Jaswant Singh respondent (son of Swaya Singh). The facts pleaded were almost the same as were pleaded in First Appeal No.312 of 2005. He was also a petitioner in CWP No.3982 of 1986 which was decided by the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh along with a bunch of other writ petitions and the main judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No.1426 of 1985. He was also a party in CWP No.4139 of 2003 in which the direction was given by the Hon'ble High Court to the appellants for deciding the legal notice/representation of the respondent by passing a speaking order. The respondent was also a party in COCP No.1400 of 2003 filed by him along with his mother Kartar Kaur against the appellants. The representation of the respondent was also rejected by the appellants by passing a detailed order dated 4.2.2004. It was prayed by the respondent that the impugned order dated 4.2.2004 be set aside and the respondent be allotted plot/showroom in the market opposite to Novelty Sweets in Lawrence Road Chowk Scheme at the ground floor. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
14. The written reply filed by the appellants was identical to the written reply filed in the complaint filed by Kartar Kaur (respondent in FA No.312 of 2005).
15. The respondent filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He had also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13. The appellant had filed the affidavit of Jugal Kishore Sharma, Chairman of the appellants as Ex.R1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.R2.
16. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 22.11.2004. The order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the appellants was set aside and the respondent was given the same relief which was given to Kartar Kaur (respondent in FA No.312 of 2005).
17. Hence, this appeal.
First Appeal No.312 of 2005 6First Appeal No.494 of 2005
18. The respondent, in this case, was M/s Jasjit Brothers through its partner Amarjit Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh. The facts pleaded in this complaint were almost identical to the facts pleaded by Kartar Kaur (respondent in FA No.312 of 2005). M/s Jasjit Brothers had filed CWP No.3983 of 1986 in the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh which was decided along with CWP No.3982 of 1986 and along with a bunch of other CWPs while the main judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in CWP No.1426 of 1985. The appellants had issued letter dated 19.1.1996 to the respondent informing her that the form filled by her was found to be in order. Certain affidavits/indemnity bonds were demanded which was supplied by the respondent but the plot was not yet allotted to her. Hence, the complaint was filed seeking direction against the appellants for allotment of an alternative plot/showroom in a suitable place i.e. opposite Golden temple or in the market raised by the appellants opposite to the Novelty Sweets in Lawrence Road Chowk Scheme on the ground floor. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
19. The appellants filed the written reply on the identical lines which was filed by them in Kartar Kaur's case (respondent in FA No.312 of 2005) and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
20. The respondent filed her affidavit Ex.C1. She had also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Jugal Kishore Sharma, Chairman of the appellants as Ex.R1 and a copy of the order dated 2.5.1995 passed by the Government of Punjab was produced as Ex.R2.
21. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 8.2.2005 and directed the appellants to allot an alternative plot/showroom to the respondent and identical relief was granted to the respondent as was granted to Kartar Kaur (respondent in FA No.312 of 2005).
22. Hence, this appeal.
First Appeal No.312 of 2005 7First Appeal No.312 of 2005 DISCUSSION :
23. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the respondent was not entitled to any plot. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2004 be set aside.
24. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
25. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
26. The admitted facts are that the appellants had issued Notification under Section 4 of the 1951 Act on 11.4.1969 for acquisition of the land which was known as Malwai Bunga bearing property No.48/3 (443-III-8) situated at Ghanta Ghar Chowk. It was the main business centre of Amritsar city. It is also not denied that this property was originally owned by the erstwhile State of Patiala and on the merger of this State with Punjab, the property came to be owned by the PWD (B & R), Punjab. Notification under Section 6 of the 1951 Act was published by the Government of Punjab on 10.10.1969 and the acquisition proceedings had become final. Some other properties were also acquired along with Malwai Bunga bearing property No.48/3 (443-III-8) situated in Ghanta Ghar Chowk. The possession of this property was taken on 2.1.1973.
27. The appellants had passed the resolution No.585 dated 16.12.1971 (Ex.C3) passed by the appellants for giving alternative plots to these oustees (local displaced persons) whose land was acquired in the Ghanta Ghar Chowk Scheme. In this resolution, Akali Kirpan Factory was shown at Serial No.3 whose land measuring 364.5 square yards was acquired. It was resolved by the appellants in Resolution N.585 dated 16.12.1971 that the appellants would allot either plot or showroom to those factory owners whose acquired area was upto 200 square yards. The appellants would allot one plot and one showroom to those factory owners whose acquired land exceeded 200 square yards. This was the earliest document which has been proved by the appellants themselves and as per this First Appeal No.312 of 2005 8 document, only the area of Akali Kirpan Factory was acquired which was earlier owned by Swaya Singh and after his death, it was being run by Kartar Kaur.
28. Therefore, neither the appellants are justified to plead that no business was being run in the Akali Kirpan Factory nor the respondent in FA No.313 of 2005 or in FA No.454 of 2005 have been shown in Ex.C3 as possessing any property which was acquired.
29. Now, the respondent has also proved the award dated 27.8.1979 (Ex.C6). As per this award, Akali Kirpan Factory in Malwai Bunga owned by the PWD (B & R), Patiala, Punjab bearing property No.48/3 (443-III-8) has been shown as owned by Kartar Kaur respondent widow of Swaya Singh. However, Jagjit Singh son of Swaya Singh, Tejinder Pal Singh son of Swaya Singh, Surinder Singh son of Jaswant Singh, Jaswant Singh (respondent in FA No.313 of 2005) son of Swaya Singh have also been shown to be running their business in property No.48/3 (443-III-8). Since these persons were the tenants in Malwai Bunga, therefore, the major part of the compensation was given to the owner namely PWD (B & R), Punjab out of the amount of compensation while Tejinder Pal Singh, Surinder Singh, Jagjit Singh, Jaswant Singh and Akali Kirpan Factory were also given a part of the compensation in their capacity as tenants in property No.48/3(443-III-8)
30. It means, therefore, that in the resolution No.585 dated 16.12.1971 (Ex.C3), only Akali Kirpan Factory is shown whose land measuring 364.5 square yards was acquired but as per the award dated 27.8.1979 Ex.C3. Tejinder Pal Singh, Surinder Singh and Jaswant Singh were also the tenants in Malwai Bunga bearing property No.48/3(443-III-8) and they were also paid a part of the compensation along with the Akali Kirpan factory. It means, therefore, that Jagjit Singh son of Swaya Singh, Tejinder Pal Singh son of Swaya Singh, Surinder Singh son of Jaswant Singh and Jaswant Singh son of Swaya Singh were also the occupiers along with Akali Kirpan Factory in Malwai Bunga bearing property No.48/3(443-III-8), the total area of which was 364.5 square yards. First Appeal No.312 of 2005 9
31. As per the award dated 27.8.1979 (Ex.C3), the following amount of compensation was paid against property No.48/3 (443-III-8) as under : -
1. PWD Rs.5,06,346/-
2. Kulwant Kaur of Rs. 678/-
M/s Pushtak Bhandar M.No.1450/3
3. Tejinder Pal Singh Rs. 2640/-
4. Surinder Pal Singh Rs. 2504/-
5. Jaswant Singh Rs. 4844/-
6. M/s Akali Kirpan Factory Rs. 6000/-
Total Rs.5,23,012/-
32. This reveals, therefore, that the total amount of compensation paid on account of M/s Akali Kirpan Factory was Rs.15,988/-, out of which, Rs.6000/- were paid to Kartar Kaur. It means, therefore, that Kartar Kaur was in possession of less than ½ of 364.5 square yards area which was in possession of M/s Akali Kirpan Factory. It means, therefore, that the area in possession of Akali Kirpan Factory was less than 200 square yards and the remaining part was in possession of Jagjit Singh son of Swaya Singh, Tejinder Pal Singh son of Swaya Singh, Surinder Singh son of Jaswant Singh and Jaswant Singh son of Swaya Singh. If this situation is taken in this prospect, then Kartar Kaur was entitled to the allotment of only one plot which as per her own version has already been allotted to her. Neither Kartar Kaur respondent nor the appellants have placed on the file the allotment letter showing the area of the plot allotted to Kartar Kaur by the appellants in lieu of her land acquired in Malwai Bunga bearing property No.48/3 (443-III-8). However, it is specifically pleaded in CWP No.2714 of 1986 'M/s Harbans Lal & Sons v. State of Punjab and another' that Kartar Kaur respondent widow of Sewa Singh (Swaya Singh) was allotted industrial plot measuring 900 square yards in East Mohan Nagar vide resolution No.204 dated 21.7.1972. Therefore, she was not allotted any more alternative plot/showroom. First Appeal No.312 of 2005 10
33. So far as firm M/s Jasjit Brothers is concerned, they were not in possession of any part of the land bearing property No.48/3(443-III-8) as no such firm has been shown in the award dated 27.8.1979 (Ex.C3) to be in possession of any part of property No.48/3(443-III-8) nor any compensation has been given to M/s Jasjit Brothers.
34. Now coming to the writ petitions filed in the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, the CWP No.3982 of 1986 was filed by Jaswant Singh (respondent in FA No.313 of 2005) along with his mother Kartar Kaur care of Akali Kirpan Factory (respondent in FA No.312 of 2005). CWP No.3983 of 1986 was filed by Surinder Singh son of Jaswant Singh partner M/s Jasjit Brothers, Tejinder Pal Singh son of Swaya Singh and one Kulwant Kaur widow of Harbans Singh Quami jointly but we are not concerned in this case with Smt.Kulwant Kaur. CWP No.2714 of 1986 was filed by M/s Harbans Lal and sons with which we are not concerned.
35. These writ petitions namely CWP No.2714 of 1986, CWP No.3982 of 1986 and CWP No.1983 of 1986 were decided along with a bunch of other writ petitions while the main judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No.1426 of 1985 decided on 8.5.1991 in which it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the owners be considered for allotment of alternative plots. CWP No.1426 of 1985 and other writ petitions were filed by the owners while CWP No.2714 of 1986, 3982 of 1986 and 3983 of 1986 were filed by the tenants in the land which was acquired.
36. Therefore, the writ petitioners in CWP No.2714 of 1986, 3982 of 1986 and 3983 of 1986 filed review applications in the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh seeking clarification that even the tenants were entitled to the alternative plots/showrooms. The order passed in review application No.197 of 1991 in CWP No.3983 of 1986 has been proved by the respondent as Ex.C9. It was decided by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 10.1.1992 and the tenant was also to be considered to be local displaced person eligible for First Appeal No.312 of 2005 11 alternative plot under Rule 6(1) of 1951 Rules. The review application No.189 of 1991 filed in CWP No.3983 of 1986 has also been proved as Ex.C9. The net result of the judgment passed in CWP No.3983 of 1986 along with review application No.197 of 1991 (Ex.C9) was that Jaswant Singh and Kartar Kaur were to be considered as local displaced persons eligible for plot under Rule 6(1) of 1951 Rules. Similarly, the net result of the judgment passed in CWP No.3983 of 1986 along with the review application No.189 of 1991 was that Surinder Singh, Tejinder Pal Singh were also to be considered as eligible for allotment of a plot under Rule 6(1) of 1951 Rules.
37. Although, Kartar Kaur respondent was already allotted an industrial plot measuring 900 square yards in East Mohan Nagar vide resolution No.204 dated 21.7.1972. but still she filed CWP No.4139 of 2003 in the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh seeking direction against the appellants to allot her an alternative plot/showroom as promised by the appellants. Jaswant Singh (respondent in FA No.313 of 2005) was also the petitioner in that writ petition. That writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh with a brief order directing the appellants to decide the legal notice/representation (filed by the petitioners) by passing a speaking order within a period of 3 months.
38. Since that order was not complied with by the appellants, therefore, the petitioners had filed contempt petition bearing COCP No.1400 of 2003. It was decided by the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh on 30.7.2004 (Ex.C12) as by that time, the appellants had complied with the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No.4139 of 2003 dated 13.3.2003.
39. Now we come to the order dated 4.2.2004 (Ex.C2) which has been passed by the appellants. As per this document, Jaswant Singh (respondent in FA No.313 of 2005) son of Swaya Singh had submitted a representation on 8.4.2003 for allotment of a plot on account of being tenant in Akali Kirpan Factory, the possession of which was taken by the appellants on 2.1.1973. The appellants had First Appeal No.312 of 2005 12 passed resolution No.66 on 23.12.2003 in allotting a plot to Jaswant Singh son of Swaya Singh (in the capacity of a tenant) as a local displaced persons under 1951 Rules. It was also sent to the Government of Punjab for approval. Since 1983 Rules were applicable under which the tenants were not eligible for being considered for allotment of a plot, therefore, resolution No.66 of 23.12.2003 was recalled/cancelled. Accordingly, Jaswant Singh and Kartar Kaur were not held entitled for allotment of a plot. The order dated 4.2.2004 (Ex.C2) was passed by the appellants in pursuance of the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh vide order dated 13.3.2003 passed in CWP No.4139 of 2003.
40. Since the Hon'ble High Court in the order dated 10.1.1992 passed in review application No.197 of 1991 in CWP No.3982 of 1986 was pleased to hold that the tenants were also to be considered as local displaced persons as eligible for allotment of alternative plot under Rule 6(1) of 1951 Rules, therefore, it was not justified for the appellants to hold that 1983 Rules were applicable and that the tenants were not eligible for allotment of a plot.
41. As discussed above, Akali Kirpan Factory was in possession of property bearing No.48/3(443-III-8) measuring 364.5 square yards. Kartar Kaur respondent, being the widow of Swaya Singh, and Jaswant Singh along with others were in possession of that property, therefore, the area measuring 364.5 square yards was not in possession of Kartar Kaur alone. This area was shared by her sons as also as was proved by the award dated 27.8.1979 Ex.C3. Kartar Kaur was in possession of less than ½ of 364.5 square yards as discussed above. Therefore, Kartar Kaur respondent was entitled only to one plot which was already allotted to her.
42. The appellants had passed resolution No.66 on 23.12.2003 for allotment of a plot to Jaswant Singh. Therefore, the appellants were not justified in cancelling that resolution by applying 1983 Rules when the Hon'ble High Court has specifically held in the order dated 10.1.1992 passed in review application First Appeal No.312 of 2005 13 No.197 of 1991 that even the tenants were local displaced persons and they were eligible for being considered for allotment of an alternative plot in term of Rule 6(1) of 1951 Rules. Therefore, Jaswant Singh (respondent in FA No.313 of 2005) is also entitled to the allotment of a plot and the order dated 4.2.2004 (Ex.C2) passed by the appellants cannot be sustained vide which they had cancelled the allotment of a plot to Jaswant Singh. Therefore, Jaswant Singh is held entitled to the allotment of a plot.
43. So far as Amarjit Kaur (respondent in FA No.494 of 2005) is concerned, she had not filed any writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh when Kartar Kaur and Jaswant Singh had filed CWP No.3982 of 1986. CWP No.3983 of 1986 was filed by Surinder Pal and Tejinder Pal Singh but neither Surinder Pal Singh nor Tejinder Pal Singh has applied for allotment of any plot to the appellants. Therefore, Amarjit Kaur (respondent in FA No.494 of 2005) is not entitled to the allotment of a plot. Moreover, neither Amarjit Kaur (respondent in FA No.494 of 2005) nor Surinder Singh nor Tejinder Pal Singh had filed any writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh when Kartar Kaur and Jaswant Singh had filed CWP No.4139 of 2003 in the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, no such direction was given by the Hon'ble High Court to the appellants for considering the case of Amarjit Kaur or of Surinder Pal Singh or of Tejinder Pal Singh. Since no such writ petition was filed by Amarjit Kaur or Surinder Pal Singh or Tejinder Pal Singh, therefore, no such order dated 4.2.2004 was passed by the appellants qua them.
44. Amarjit Kaur has relied only upon the letter dated 19.1.1996 (Ex.C3) which was sent by the appellants to her along with Kartar Kaur respondent. Since the plot was allotted to Kartar Kaur respondent, therefore, if Amarjit Kaur (respondent in FA No.494 of 2005) thought that she was entitled to a plot, the cause of action had arisen to her on 19.1.1996 and she would have been at liberty to challenge the action of the appellants in not allotting the plot to her. Therefore, First Appeal No.312 of 2005 14 her case is also barred by limitation. Moreover, Amarjit Kaur is the wife of that Jaswant Singh who is respondent in FA No.313 of 2005.
45. So far as Tejinder Pal Singh and Surinder Singh are concerned, the cause of action had arisen to them on 10.1.1992 when the order was passed in the review application N.189 of 1991 in CWP No.3983 of 1986. Thereafter, they had not taken any steps for pursuing their remedy with the appellants for allotment of a plot. They had not filed any CWP in 2003 when Kartar Kaur respondent and Jaswant Singh (respondent in FA No.313 of 2005) had filed CWP No.4139 of 2003 nor any such direction was given by the Hon'ble High Court to the appellants for disposing of the legal notice/representation of Surinder Singh or Tejinder Pal Singh nor any such order identical to the order dated 4.2.2004 was passed by the appellants qua Surinder Singh and Tejinder Pal Singh. Therefore, neither Amarjit Kaur (respondent in FA No.494 of 2005) nor Surinder Singh nor Tejinder Pal Singh was entitled to the allotment of any plot as their right had come to an end long earlier being barred by limitation.
46. Kartar Kaur respondent was already allotted a plot. She was not entitled to any other plot being a co-occupant in the area of Akali Kirpan factory along with her sons and the area in her occupation was less than 200 square yards. Therefore, she has instituted the complaint against the appellant without any basis.
47. Therefore, the appeal is accepted with costs of Rs.20,000/- and the impugned order dated 22.11.2004 is set aside. Kartar Kaur respondent shall be liable to pay this amount.
48. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 25.2.2005. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.313 of 2005
49. In view of the reasons recorded above, the respondent is held entitled to the allotment of a plot.
First Appeal No.312 of 2005 15
50. The learned District Forum has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. It appears to be unjustified when the direction has been given to the appellants to allot a plot to him.
51. Therefore, this appeal is partly accepted to the extent that the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is set aside and the impugned order dated 22.11.2004 is modified to the extent that Jaswant Singh is held entitled to the allotment of a plot. If a plot is not available as per the direction of the learned District Forum, the plot in any other scheme may be allotted to him.
52. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 25.2.2005. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.494 of 2005
53. So far as FA No.494 of 2005 is concerned, litigation has been thrust by the respondent on the appellants without any basis. Therefore, this appeal is accepted with costs of Rs.20,000/- and the impugned order dated 8.2.2005 is set aside. The amount of costs shall be payable by Amarjit Kaur.
54. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 31.3.2005. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
55. The arguments in all these appeals were heard on 4.10.2011 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
56. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
MEMBER
October 18 , 2011.
Paritosh