State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Boota Ram vs Punjab Urban Planning & Development ... on 22 September, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.7 of 2006
Date of institution : 4.1.2006
Date of decision : 22 .9.2011
Boota Ram son of Sh. Ganpat Ram, aged 73 years, Senior Citizen, Retd. Govt.
Employee, r/o House No.928/11, Gali No.8, Deep Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, Mohali, District Ropar
through its Additional Chief Administrator.
2. Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) through its Estate Officer.
3. Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA), Chandigarh through its
Chief Administrator.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 25.11.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ropar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri R.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri G.S. Arshi, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Version of the appellant:
The appellant was a retired employee and a senior citizen. In response to the advertisement for allotment of residential plots of different sizes made by the respondents, the appellant had submitted the application for allotment of a plot measuring 250 square yards in Mohali for a total amount of Rs.5,000/- i.e. @ Rs.20/- per square yard. As per condition no.4(i) of the advertisement, the First Appeal No.7 of 2006. 2 appellant had also deposited 10% of the plot price to the tune of Rs.500/- vide demand draft dated 28.8.1969 for which receipt dated 28.11.1969 was issued by the respondents.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondents vide their letter dated 19.12.1974 informed the appellant that the price of the plot had increased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,225/- and an amount of Rs.3306/- was demanded to make it as 25% of the plot price of Rs.15,225/-. The appellant remitted this amount of Rs.3306/- to the respondents vide demand draft dated 3.1.1975. However the appellant had not received the allotment letter. The appellant had made many representations and also visited the office of the respondents but to no effect. The appellant had also deposited an amount of Rs.444/- and another amount of Rs.750/- with the respondents but even then the allotment letter was not received by him.
3. It was further pleaded that in the year 1993 i.e. 24 years after the submission of the application on 28.8.1969 the appellant received a letter dated 7.9.1993 by which the appellant was informed that the plot price had been increased to Rs.1200/- per square yard for a plot measuring 250 square yards and option was demanded from the appellant. It was the last option. The appellant had also received a similar letter on 5.7.1994 seeking option for the allotment of a plot at the rate of Rs.1200/- per square yard. The appellant made representation to the then Hon'ble Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Punjab on 15.9.1994 for this illegal demand made by the respondents. Then the appellant was called by the respondents vide their letter dated 28.2.1995 for personal hearing on 13.3.1995. The appellant had attended the meeting and it was decided that a plot measuring 250 square yards be allotted to the appellant at the rate of Rs.520/- per square yard. Still the allotment letter was not issued to the appellant. Although the appellant continued making representations to the respondents and also continued visiting their office off and on.
First Appeal No.7 of 2006. 3
4. It was further pleaded that the cost of construction has gone up and if the plot had been allotted to the appellant by the respondents long earlier the appellant would have saved much expenditure on cost of construction. Therefore the appellant was entitled to compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The plot price has also increased to Rs.3750/- per square yard. Since the delay has been caused by the respondents, therefore, the plot measuring 250 square yards be allotted to the appellant for a sum of Rs.15,225/- after adjustment of the amount already paid to them. Hence the complaint. Version of the respondents:
5. The respondents filed the written reply. Preliminary objections were pleaded that the appellant was not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable; there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and no cause of action had arisen to the appellant; mere deposit of earnest money does not vest any right in the appellant for allotment of a plot; the appellant was stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; it was barred by limitation and no consumer dispute was involved. Hence it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
6. On merits it was admitted that the appellant was a Government employee. It was admitted that the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.500/- vide bank draft dated 28.8.1969 as earnest money along with the application for the allotment of a plot measuring 250 square yards the price of which was Rs.5,000/-. It was also admitted that the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.3306/- vide bank draft dated 3.1.1975. The respondents charged the price plot according to the policies of the Government of Punjab as announced from time to time. It was also admitted that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.444/- and a sum of Rs.750/-. The appellant was informed by the respondents vide their letter dated 12.5.1981 that the rates of the plots were revised by the Government relating to the residential plots in Urban Estates and the appellant was given the option to apply for a plot in eligible category on the basis of income criteria as mentioned in the First Appeal No.7 of 2006. 4 letter dated 12.5.1981. The option was to be exercised within 30 days and once the option was exercised it was to be final. The appellant had opted for the allotment of a plot measuring 200 square yards and had thereafter deposited an amount of Rs.444/- to make it equal to 25% of the amount of the opted plot.
7. It was further pleaded that the respondents had again informed the old applicants vide notice published in the daily Tribune dated 10.8.1983 that the policy of the Government of Punjab was revised. The appellant had again exercised the option for 250 square yards plot being eligible in that group of income and he had sent the amount of Rs.750/- to complete the earnest money of Rs.5,000/-. The draw of lots was held in 1985 but the appellant was not successful. Therefore the question of allotment of a plot to the appellant did not arise.
8. It was admitted that the respondents vide letter dated 7.9.1993 had asked the appellant to exercise the option for allotment of a plot at the rate of Rs.1200/- per square yard and he was asked to deposit the amount at the new rate to make initial deposit of 10% of the total plot price. The appellant had neither exercised the option nor had deposited any amount in accordance with the letter dated 7.9.1993. Therefore the appellant was not eligible for being considered in the draw of lots for the allotment of plots. It was also admitted that the respondents had sent letter dated 5.7.1994 to the appellant giving him the option for having a plot at the rate of Rs.1200/- per square yard but the appellant had failed to exercise the option. It was also admitted that the appellant had made a representation dated 15.9.1994 to the Hon'ble Minister, Housing and Urban Development, Punjab and that the appellant was called by the respondents vide their letter dated 28.2.1995 for appearing in their office for personal hearing on 13.3.1995.
9. It was denied if it was decided in that meeting for allotment of a plot measuring 250 square yards to the appellant at the rate of Rs.520/- per square yard. Rather the meeting was not attended by the Estate Officer which was called by the Additional Housing Commissioner on 13.3.1995. It was also denied if any order First Appeal No.7 of 2006. 5 was passed for allotment of a plot to the appellant out of left out cases. The Additional Housing Commissioner had only made the office noting that it was desirable to allot a plot measuring 250 square yards to the appellant at the rate of Rs.520/- per square yard but since the allotment was to be made by the Estate Officer after the approval from the Finance/Accounts Committee, therefore, it could not be allotted to the appellant.
10. It was further pleaded that the appellant had opted for the allotment of a plot measuring 200 sq. yards and had deposited a sum of Rs.444/- for making it equal to 25% of the plot price. He had also opted for a plot measuring 250 square yards and had deposited a sum of Rs.750/- to make it earnest amount of Rs.5,000.00 However the appellant was not successful in the draw of lots held in 1985. In 1993 and in 1994 the appellant was given option to opt for a plot at the rate of Rs.1200 square yard but it was not exercised by the appellant. As such he was not considered by the respondents nor he was considered by the Committee constituted for that purpose. The appellant had failed to complete the formalities within the time specified. Therefore he has no legal right for allotment of a plot.
11. It was further pleaded that the respondents had again issued the letter dated 1.3.2001 seeking the option of the appellant being an old applicant to have a plot at the rate of Rs.3750/- per square yard and if he so desired to deposit 10% of the earnest money at the new rate of Rs.3750/- per square yard but the appellant had failed to exercise the option. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and dismissal of the complaint was prayed. Proceeding before the District Forum:
12. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C-1. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C24.
13. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of T.K. Goel, Estate Officer dated 4.8.2004. The respondents also filed the affidavit of Darshan Singh, Estate Officer, PUDA as Ex.R-1. They also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R12. First Appeal No.7 of 2006. 6
14. Learned District Forum did not concede to the request of the appellant for the allotment of a plot but it only directed the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant deposited by him by way of earnest money along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and costs of Rs.2,000/- vide impugned judgment dated 25.11.2005.
15. Hence the appeal.
Discussion:
16. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted, impugned judgment dated 25.11.2005 be set aside and the respondents be directed to allot a plot measuring 250 square yards for an amount of Rs.15,225/- to the appellant along with compensation, interest and costs.
Written submissions were also made along with some documents. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Lata Construction & Ors. V. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah & Anr." 2000(1) Apex Court Journal 64 (SC). Reliance was also placed to some judgments of Hon'ble National Commission, this Commission and other Hon'ble State Commissions.
17. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed with heavy costs.
18. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
19. The undisputed facts are that the appellant had submitted his application for allotment of a plot measuring 250 square yards for an amount of Rs.5,000/- vide his application dated 28.8.1969 along with the earnest money of Rs.500/-. Thereafter the price of the plot had increased to Rs.15,225/- and the appellant on demand had deposited an amount of Rs.3306/-. The respondents had given the option to the appellant vide letter dated 12.5.1981 (Ex.R-2) and the appellant had exercised the option for a plot measuring 200 square yards and he had also deposited an amount of Rs.444/- to make it 25% of the plot price. Again the First Appeal No.7 of 2006. 7 option was given to the appellant and the option was exercised by the appellant for a plot and the option was exercised by the appellant for a plot measuring 250 square yards and had deposited another amount of Rs.750/- to complete the earnest amount of Rs.5,000/-. The name of the appellant was considered by the respondents in the draw of lots held in 1985 but the appellant had remained unsuccessful. These facts are not in dispute.
20. Since the appellant had remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots held in the year 1985 the name of the appellant was included in the list of old applicants. The respondents had sent letter dated 7.9.1993 (Ex.R-4) to the appellant informing him that the price of the plots had increased and the plot could be allotted at the rate of Rs.1200/- per square yard. The respondents also informed the appellant that for a plot measuring 250 square yards Rs.3300/- was the earnest money. Option was sought from the appellant. He was also informed that the allotment would be made through draw of lots. The option form was also sent to him but the appellant failed to respond. It is admitted by the appellant himself also that he had received the letter dated 7.9.1993 and the option was demanded for accepting the plot measuring 250 square yards at the rate of Rs.1200/- per square yard. It is nowhere pleaded by the appellant even in the complaint, if he had exercised the option. Therefore the silence on the part of the appellant did not entitle him to be considered in the draw of lots.
21. Even thereafter the respondents had written letter dated 5.7.1994 (Ex.R-5) to the appellant seeking his option on the same premises. The option form was also enclosed and the last date for submitting the option was 30.7.1994. This fact is again admitted by the appellant in para 9 of the complaint but the appellant again remained silent and failed to submit the option before the last date i.e. 30.7.1994.
22. On the other hand, the appellant met the Hon'ble Minister on 15.9.1994 and he had received the letter dated 28.2.1995 for personal hearing in the office of the respondents on 13.3.1995. The appellant alleges that he had gone to the office of First Appeal No.7 of 2006. 8 the respondents on 13.3.1995 and the respondents had decided to allot a plot measuring 250 square yards to the appellant at the rate of Rs.520/- per square yard. This fact has been denied by the respondents. The appellant has also relied upon the office noting dated 13.3.1995 (Ex.R-8). These proceedings were recorded by the Additional Housing Commissioner but the office had raised the objection that the Additional Housing Commissioner was not entitled to allot a plot and it was decided to send the file to the Finance Committee. Whatever notings were made in the office of the respondents, that does not give him any right as these were not communicated to the appellant. Moreover in the office noting dated 24.4.1997 Ex.RA-11 it was held that since Boota Ram had failed to complete the formalities in time, therefore, he could not be considered for draw of lots. The respondents had also sent letter to the appellant dated 7.3.2000 (Ex.R-12) that since the appellant had not completed the formalities, therefore, the plot could not be allotted to him.
23. Since the appellant had failed to exercise the option in terms of the letter dated 7.9.1993 (Ex.R-4) or the letter dated 5.7.1994 (Ex.R-5), therefore, obviously formalities were not completed by the appellant nor he had deposited the necessary amounts. Hence the appellant could not be considered in the draw of lots for allotment of a plot.
24. Moreover Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v. MANJU JAIN & ORS." I(2011) CPJ 4 (SC) has held that the appellant does not get a right till the orders are communicated to the claimant. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if the appellant succeeds in the draw of lots, till that decision is communicated to the claimant, he does not get any vested right to a plot. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 of the aforesaid judgment as under:-
"23. Constitution Benches of this Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395; First Appeal No.7 of 2006. 9 and State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, AIR 1966 SC 1313, have held that an order does not become effective unless it is published and communicated to the person concerned. Before the communication, the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character.
A similar view has been reiterated in Union of India & Ors. V. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar & Ors., VII (1998) SLT 124=AIR 1998 SC 2722; and State of West Bengal v. M.R. Mondal & Anr., VI(2001) SLT 496=(2002) 8 SCC 443.
In Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., IV (2003) SLT 80=(2003) 5 SCC 413, this Court held that the order of the authority must be communicated for conferring an enforceable right and in case the order has been passed and not communicated, it does not create any legal right in favour of the party.
Thus, in view of the above, it can be held that if an order is passed but not communicated to the party concerned, it does not create any legal right which can be enforced through the Court of Law, as it does not become effective till it is communicated."
25. In view of the law discussed above, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant need not be discussed nor these apply to the facts of the present case.
26. In the present case, the appellant was unsuccessful in the draw of lots held in the year 1985. Thereafter by non-exercise of the option given by letters dated First Appeal No.7 of 2006. 10 7.9.1993 (Ex.R-4) and the letter dated 5.7.1994 (Ex.R-5) he had not even become eligible for being considered in the draw of lots.
27. The District Forum has already directed the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest and costs of litigation to the appellant. Therefore proper relief has already been given to the appellant.
28. In view of the discussion held above, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2005.
29. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
30. The arguments in this case were heard on 8.9.2011 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
31. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
September 22 , 2011 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER