Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Exec.Officer Nagar Palika Mandal vs Ram Niranjan(D) Tr.Lrs. on 12 January, 2016
Bench: Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 246-247 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 35903-35904 of 2011)
EXEC.OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA MANDAL …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAM NIRANJAN(D) TR.LRS. …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Delay in filing special leave petitions and substitution application is condoned.
Application for substitution is allowed. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the orders dated 17th July, 2008 and 16th July, 2010 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition Nos. 2587 of 2008 and 2878 of 2010 respectively the present appeals by special leave have been filed. The second revision petition i.e. R.P. No. 2878 of 2010 was withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel. Be that as it may, the same does not have much effect.
Signature Not Verified
The factual scenario as is projected is that Ram Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2016.01.23 Niranjan Tibra (respondent), the predecessor of Smt. Sita 12:09:18 IST Reason:
Devi Tibra filed an application on 2.1.1973 and was allotted 2 a plot on depositing the amount of Rs.3400/- before the Authority. When the said Ram Niranjan Tibra commenced construction on that plot after getting permission after three months, he came to know that the said land had been allotted in favour of someone else. He immediately brought the said fact to the notice of the Nagar Palika Mandal, Jhunjhunu (Municipal Council, Jhunjhunu). Eventually, the respondent filed an application for allotment of another plot. The Municipal Council, as is evident, neither allotted the plot nor did it refund the money. The said Ram Niranjan Tibra did not take any steps till 1997. As the factual scenario would reveal his son (Ramesh Kumar Tibra) became the Chairman of the Municipal Council in November 1994, and a communication was sent by the concerned Executive Officer of the Municipal Council on 22.10.1997 that the alternative plot could not be allotted in his favour. The communication, as pleaded, gave rise to the cause of action and he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhunjhunu for grant of alternative plot. The Consumer Forum allowed the complaint to the extent by directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 1975 and for pain and agony caused, cost of Rs.500/- was awarded.
The aforesaid order was assailed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “The State 3 Commission”). The State Commission directed for allotment of a plot admeasuring 1000 sq. yards. It is interesting to note that when the appeal was pending before the State Commission, the daughter in law (Smt. Bharti Tibra) of the respondent was the Chairman of the Municipal Council. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal council submitted that the plots admeasuring 1000 sq. yds. were available. Taking note of the said submission the State Commission directed for handing over of one of the said plots to the respondent on the same value at which original plot admeasuring 833.03 sq. yds. was allotted to the respondent.
The aforesaid order compelled the counsel for the appellant to file the revisions before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which declined to interfere.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The present appeals deserve to be allowed on two counts. The first is that late Ram Niranjan Tibra though submitted an application in the year 1973, did not take any steps till 1997. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he followed it up with the fond hope but nothing happened. It is quite unacceptable that a prudent man would wait for twenty-two years to receive the communication of rejection and not take any steps for redressal of the grievance. 4 Therefore, the doctrine of delay and laches would definitely come into play at the initial stage. The second aspect is the way the case has been conducted before the State Commission and revisional forum. There was no necessity on the part of the Municipal Council to put forth that the plots were available. Even if the same were available, it was obligatory on the part of the State Commission to hold the respondent was not entitled to such a plot in law. There has been a total non-application of mind and the same is also reflectible from the order of the National Commission.
Resultantly, the appeals are allowed. The orders passed by the State Commission as well as National Commission are set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………………………J. (DIPAK MISRA) ………………………………………………J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) New Delhi;
January 12,2016.5
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 35903-35904/2011 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17/07/2008 in RP No. 2587/2008,16/07/2010 in RP No. 2878/2010 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Reddressal Commission, New Delhi) EXEC.OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA MANDAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM NIRANJAN(D) TR.LRS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and substitution and interim relief and office report) Date : 12/01/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ram Niwas Buri,Adv.
Ms. N. Annapoorani,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh Singh,Adv.
Mr. Suman Jyoti Khaitan,Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing special leave petitions and substitution application is condoned.
Application for substitution is allowed. Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed.
The orders passed by the State Commission as well as National Commission are bound to set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is restored. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUMAN WADHWA) (H.S. PARASHER)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
Signed order is placed on the file.