National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Amritpal Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr. on 24 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1263 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 22/08/2014 in Complaint No. 37/2009 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. AMRITPAL SINGH GREWAL S/O. PARITHIPAL SINGH GREWAL H NO. 605, SECTOR-36-B, CHANDIGARH ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. THROUGH SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB , CHANDIGARH 2. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 24 Feb 2015 ORDER Since, similar question of law and facts are involved in these cases, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab(for short, 'State Commission')vide impugned order dated 22.08.2014, dismissed Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2009--Amritpal Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and Ors, and Consumer Complaint No.38 of 2009--Gajinderpal Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.
2. Facts of (Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2009) are taken as the lead case. Originally, Prithipal Singh Grewal, (father of complainant) was owner of 49 Kanals of land in different Khasras No. for year 1969-70 of village Sherpur. Similarly, Smt. Ind Kaur w/o Tara Singh (parental aunt of complainant) was owner of 45 Kanals 3 Marlas. Notification dated 11.12.1970, under Punjab Town Improvement Act,1922 was issued for acquisition of the above land. Prithipal Singh and Ind Kaur, submitted their objections. Vide Resolution No.137 dated 22.1.1971, their land was decided to be exempted and scheme was approved by Government of Punjab on 08.11.1971. On 24.03.1972, Land Acquisition Collector announced the award for compensation.
3. It is alleged, that on 29.04.1972, Prithipal Singh exchanged an area of 31 Kanals 15 Marlas out of his land measuring 49 Kanals, with his sons Amritpal Singh and Gajinderpal Singh--Complainants. Thus, they became owner to the extent of 31 Kanals and 15 Marlas. Smt. Ind Kaur sold 17 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land and was left with 27 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land.
4. It is stated that on 24.5.1976 on representation of Prithipal Singh, Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 decided to acquire this land by way of negotiations. At that time, Rules of 1975 were invoked. As per these rules, any person who is owner of land for last two years before issuance of Notification under Section 36, is entitled for allotment as 'Local Displaced Person' (in short, 'LDP'). In this way both Amritpal Singh Grewal and Gajinder Singh Grewal, became entitled to get a plot. It is further stated, that on 19.5.2006, Government of Punjab decided to direct respondent no.2 to consider the case of the 'Local Displaced Person'. Respondent No.2 despite of considering case of LDP, is going to allot plot to those persons who do not deserve. Complainants requested respondent no.2 to consider their case. However, they have failed to consider their case, which resulted in filing of the complaints. The cause of action arose when despite instructions of the Government of Punjab, respondents failed to allot plots to the complainants. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, consumer complaints were filed with following prayer;
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission direct the Improvement Trust Ludhiana to allot a suitable plot of area measuring 500 sq. yards in the scheme for which the land was acquired or in any other equally developed scheme of the trust, if the plots are not available in the scheme. A compensation of Rs.44 lacs may also be granted to the complainant with interest from the date of filing of this complaint till the realization of the amount along with costs in the interest of justice.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of this petition a plot of 500 sq. yards be reserved for allotment to the complainant and also restraining the trust from allotting any plot the employee of the trust in the interest of justice."
5. Respondents in their reply took preliminary objections stating that Complainant-Amritpal Singh has deposited a sum of Rs.500/- on 15.7.1976 vide receipt no.47307 under the Scheme of 'Displaced Person' and in lieu of the scheme, plot No.200F measuring 500 sq. yards under the 256 acres scheme was allotted vide Trust Memo No.8416 dated 30.12.2008 in the name of Gajinderpal Singh Grewal and Amritpal Singh Grewal. Plot No. 49-B measuring 400 sq. yards in Rajpur Nagar Scheme was allotted vide memo no.7103 dated 30.5.1985 in the name of Prithipal Singh(father of Complainant) and Ind Kaur. On merits, it is stated that receipt No. 47307 dated 15.7.1979, does not form the part of the record since it is a false and fabricated document. No receipt number as alleged by complainant was ever issued on 15.7.1979. The complainant has used the same receipt no. 47307 dated 15.7.1976 by changing the date and year i.e.15.7.1979. The complainant is not entitled for allotment of second plot in his name. The complaints are false and frivolous. Moreover, the complaints are barred by limitation, as same have been filed after a gap of 33 years. Further, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
6. The State Commission vide impugned order, dismissed both complaints.
7. Being aggrieved, appellants have filed these appeals.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the record.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel, that on 17.07.2006 in pursuance of the directions issued by the Government, respondent no.2 required one Sukhdev Singh to furnish certain documents. However respondents did not invite the complainants, which is totally a discriminately approach adopted by the respondents. The appellants are entitled for allotment of plot of 500 sq. yards in the scheme.
10. State Commission while dismissing the complaints, in its order observed;
"12. We have considered the contentions raised by thecounsel for the parties. It is clear from the contentions of the partiesthat the land was acquired in the year 1970 and at that time PrithipalSingh Grewal and Ind Kaur were owners of the land, on theirobjections, the land was ordered to be exempted in the year 1972and again in the year 1976 on their request that land be acquired andthey are ready to take the compensation as per the rates awarded bythe Land Acquisition Collector. Again resolution was passed by theOp on 24.5.1976 and it was ordered to acquire that land, which waspart of that notification issued under Section 36 of the Act in the year1970, therefore, the acquisition of the land of Prithipal Singh Grewaland Ind Kaur will go back to the year 1970. There is no otherinstruction vide which the land was purchased by the ImprovementTrust from Prithipal Singh Grewal or from the complainant. It istransfer of immoveable property, which cannot be on the basis ofpresumptions, it should be either by way of acquisition or by way ofsale/purchase. There is no document with regard to sale/purchase ofthe property and certainly, there is notification of the year 1970regarding acquisition of this land, therefore, it is acquisition of theland in the year 1970, therefore, we do not agree with the prepositionraised by the counsel for the complainant that the acquisition bepresumed in the year 1976.
13. In case the land was acquired in the year 1970 thenwhether the complainant will be entitled to any plot independently asof a right. In the year 1970, the complainant was not owner of theproperty, only Prithipal Singh Grewal and Ind Kaur were the ownersof the property. The property was transferred in the name of thecomplainant and his brother in the year 1972, which was subsequentto the notification and in the year 1970, rules of 1964 will apply andaccording to 1964 Rules, LDP will be a person, whose land will beacquired by the Trust for acquisition of any scheme under the Act of1922. Since the complainant was not owner of any land in the year1970 at the time the notification of acquisition was issued, therefore,he will not be entitled to any plot. As referred above, Prithipal SinghGrewal and Ind Kaur were the owners of the property as Civil Decreewas passed in favour of the complainant and his brother in the year1972. Since at the time of acquisition, Prithipal Singh Grewal and IndKaur were the owners and plot has been allotted in the name ofPrithipal Singh Grewal, which is not disputed. Ind Kaur had died andhis property was inherited by his brother Pritpal Singh Grewal andafter his death by the complainant and his brother, therefore, in lien ofthe land of Ind Kaur acquired by the Ops, a plot has been jointlyallotted in the name of the complainant and his brother, copy of thesame has been placed on the record as Ex. OP-2/1 i.e. memo No.3416 dated 30.12.2008. Since the complainant was not owner of anyland acquired by the Ops in the year 1970, therefore, he is notentitled to any plot as LDP, therefore, we do not see any merit in thecomplaint filed by the complainant; the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. As per allegations made in the complaints, it is purely a civil dispute between the parties. Admittedly, the land owned by Prithipal Singh and Ind Kaur was acquired long ago. Further, appellants in their complaints, have nowhere stated as to how they are 'consumer' within the meaning of 'consumer' as defined under the Act. Lastly, appellants have not averred at all in the complaints as to when, cause of action arose in their favour.
12. It is an admitted fact that land was acquired in the year 1976. Moreover, sum of Rs.500/- was deposited by the complainants as early as in the year 1996, under the Scheme of ' LDP' for which land has already been allotted.
13. The State Commission, in the impugned order has categorically held, that complainants were not owner of the land acquired by respondents in year 1970. Therefore, they are not entitled to any plot in the category of LDP. It further held that at the time of acquisition, Prithipal Singh Grewal and Ind Kaur were the owners. The plot had been allotted in the name of Prithipal Singh Grewal. Further, Ind Kaur had died and her property was inherited by his brother Prithipal Singh Grewal. Further, in lien of the land of Ind Kaur acquired by the respondents, a plot has already been jointly allotted in the name of Amritpal Singh Grewal and Gajinderpal Singh Grewal, vide memo No.3416 dated 30.12.2008. The State Commission further observed, that since complainants were not owner of the land acquired by the respondents in the year 1970, therefore they are not entitled to any plot as LDP.
14. We are in full agreement with the above reasonings of the State Commission. In addition as already observed, the aforesaid disputes are purely of civil nature. The consumer complaints, therefore are not maintainable.
15. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, both appeals stand dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each.
16. Appellants are directed to deposit the aforesaid costs by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission within four weeks from today.
17. In case, appellants fail to deposit the costs within the prescribed period, then they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
18. List on 27th March, 2015 for compliance.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER