State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gram Panchayat vs Nachhittar Singh on 16 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1385 of 2007
Date of Institution : 10.10.2007
Date of decision : 16.07.2012
Gram Panchayat, Sakkanwali, Tehsil and District Muktsar through its Panch
Balraj Singh.
...Appellants
Versus
1. Nachhittar Singh,
2. Gurjant Singh,
sons of Jeet Singh son of Ajaib Singh, resident of village Sakanwali, Tehsil and
District Muktsar.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 29.12.2006 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : None.
For the respondents : Sh.M.S.Bedi, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents were the resident of village Sakanwali, Tehsil and District Muktsar and constructed their house. They pay the house tax, Chulla tax and Chownkidara Tax and other taxes to the appellants. Therefore, the respondents were the consumer qua the appellants.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondents have taken the electric connection in their house under the domestic category. The Hadda Rori (keeping the dead bodies of cattle) was in existence in khasra No.124. There was a party fiction in the village and the appellants forcibly and without necessity intentionally were constructing Hadda Rori near the residential house of the respondents. If the appellants succeeded to do so, it would become a continuous cause of nuisance to the respondents and there was a danger of spreading First Appeal No.1385 of 2007 2 serious disease. The place of Hadda Rori is frequented by the street dogs, flying birds and there was likelihood of spreading of disease. It also gives foul smell seriously affecting the health of the residents nearby. Hence the complaint seeking to restrain the appellants from constructing Hadda Rori near the house of the respondents.
VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS
3. The appellants filed written reply. It was pleaded that the District Forum had no jurisdiction under Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961. It was also admitted that the respondents were resident of village Sakanwali. The khasra number of their house was not intimated by the respondents. It was denied if the respondents paid Chulla Tax / Chownkidara Tax regularly or if they were the consumers qua the appellants. It was admitted that the earlier Hadda Rori was located in khasra No.124 for the last 35 years. But since the population was increasing, residential area of village was expanding and Hadda Rori had become a part of abadi land. There were many houses near the Hadda Rori.
4. It was further pleaded that after request of these peoples, whose houses were near the Hadda Rori, the appellants had decided to shift this Hadda Rori away from the residential area. A general meeting of Gram Sabha was called and the Gram Sabha passed resolution on 29.6.2004 and decided to shift the Hadda Rori to Khasra No.71/9/2(4-0). It was away from the residential area and there was no house nearabout it within the radius of 3.5 acre of land.
5. It was further pleaded that Gram Panchayat had taken the matter to Block Development and Panchayat Officer and District Development and Panchayat Officer for granted permission to the appellants Panchayat for shifting Hadda Rori to khasra No.71/9/2(4-0). The permission was granted by DDPO, Muktsar on 22.7.2004. After taking permission from DDPO, the Gram Panchayat had shifted the Hadda Rori to khasra No.71/9/2(4-0) and it was announced in the village on 27.7.2004 through loud speaker. On 29.7.2004 the buffalo of Charanjit Singh had died and he had placed the dead body of buffalo in the newly selected Hadda Rori place. Thus the newly selected Hadda Rori has already come into First Appeal No.1385 of 2007 3 existence on 29.7.2004. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the parts of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
6. Parties produced the affidavits / documents in support of their respective version.
7. The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "District Forum") accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 29.12.2006 and directed the appellants to operate Hadda Rori in khasra No.124 where it is operating for the last 35 years. The appellants are restrained to use khasra No. 71/9/2(4-0) and 71/9/2(0-7-4) for placing the dead cattle of the said village.
8. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
9. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The respondents have placed on file the receipt dated 16.3.2004 as Ex.C6 by which the Gram Panchayat has collected the house tax from Nachhatar Singh respondent. Therefore, Nachhatar Singh was the consumer qua the appellants.
12. Admittedly the Hadda Rori was existing in khasra No.124 for the last 35 years. The respondents have not given the khasra number of his house. The appellants have taken the plea that khasra No.124 has come in the abadi land and there are many houses nearabout it. After following the necessary procedure, the appellants decided to shift the Hadda Rori to khasra No. 71/9/2 (4-0) with the approval of District Development and Panchayat Officer on 22.7.2004. It was also announced in the village on the same day. The buffalo died on 29.7.2004 was placed in the new place earmarked for Hadda Rori. It was also pleaded by the appellants that there is no residential area within 3.5 acres of Hadda Rori.
First Appeal No.1385 of 2007 4
13. Nachhatar Singh respondent had also appeared in the witness box and proved his affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and Gurmit Singh filed his affidavit Ex.CB, while Baljit Singh filed his affidavit Ex.CE.
14. It is not proved by the respondents by any documents if their house is situated near the Hadda Rori bearing khasra No. 71/9/2(4-0). Moreover, the site was selected by the appellants after taking the approval from the District Development and Panchayat Officer.
15. There is no deficiency in service as the appellants have selected the new site for Hadda Rori after following the due procedure. Moreover, they have stated that there is no house near the new place of Hadda Rori within 3.5 acres of land.
16. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 29.12.2006 is set aside.
17. If the respondents have any difficulty with the new place selected for Hadda Rori, they should make a representation to the District Development and Panchayat Officer concerned.
18. The arguments in this case were heard on 10.7.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon), Member July 16, 2012.
Davinder