State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
District Town Planner, Rewari. vs Chander Parkash Sharma S/O Shri Ram ... on 3 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1094 of 2011 Date of Institution: 09.08.2011 Date of Decision: 03.08.2011 District Town Planner, Rewari. Appellant (OP-2) Versus Chander Parkash Sharma s/o Shri Ram partap Sharma, Resident of House No.1170-A, Maruti Vihar, Gurgaon. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Ajay Chaudhri, DAG for appellant. Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30.06.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Rewari whereby complaint filed by complainant (respondent herein) against the appellant-opposite party No.2 as well as Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari (who was opposite party No.1 but has not been arrayed neither appellant nor performa respondent), was accepted by granting following relief:-
this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to approve and release the building plan to the complainant immediately. The complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-
against opposite party No.2. Needful be done within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, otherwise with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this petition till realization.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that plot No.1095 measuring 60 Sq. mtrs, located in Sector-5, Part-II, Dharuhera was re-allotted to the complainant Chander Parkash vide letter No.7456 dated 12.09.2005. On 19.03.2007 the complainant submitted Building Site Plan for construction of the house and deposited the required fee of Rs.1,000/- with the opposite parties, but the opposite parties vide letter bearing memo No.808 dated 26.3.2007 informed the complainant that the site plan could not be approved because of pending litigation with respect to the plot in question in a Civil Writ Petition. The possession of the plot was already delivered to the complainant vide Possession Certificate dated 15.02.2007. Legal Notice dated 13.05.2010 was issued to the complainant. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 Estate Officer, HUDA, filed written statement stating therein that vide letter No.808 dated 26.03.2007, District Town Planner, Rewari-opposite party No.2 was requested for sanctioning of the site plan but he sent back the same with the endorsement regarding pending litigation. Thus, it was stated that the site plan was to be sanctioned after clearance from the opposite party No.2.
Opposite Party No.2 District Town Planner initially put in appearance through its FIA Shri Rajesh Kumar on 19.11.2010 but despite taking several adjournments, failed to file reply and even thereafter failed to appear on the date of hearing and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.01.2011.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of filing of appeal, Estate Officer, HUDA-opposite party No.1 has not been impleaded as party. It is not disputed that relief was granted against both the parties but due to non-filing of the appeal by the Estate Officer, HUDA and due to non-impleading of Estate Officer, HUDA as performa respondent, no relief can be given in this appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum cannot be interfered without impleading all the necessary parties in this appeal.
On behalf of the appellant it is contended that they had already empowered the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari vide letter dated 21.05.2009 about the new guidelines for approval of Building Plans in respect of residential plots (excluding Group Housing plot) and therefore, it was the Estate Officer who had the powers but he did not sanction the plan nor any appeal has been filed on behalf of Estate Officer, HUDA.
Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that we would have entertain this appeal had the Estate Officer would have filed the appeal against the impugned order. At the same time by filing this appeal by not impleading the Estate Officer even as performa respondent who is otherwise a necessary party, this appeal is not maintainable. This appeal was filed on 09.08.2011. Request was made on behalf of the appellant that now the appellant is ready to implead the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari as a party to the appeal. But keeping in view the fact that a valuable right has accrued to the respondent-complainant, we are left with no other option but to reject the request of the counsel or the appellant and dismiss this appeal. We order accordingly.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 03.08.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member