State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ranjwant Singh vs Improvement Trust on 4 August, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2014
Date of institution:3.4.2014
Date of Decision: 4.8.2015
1. Rajwant Singh s/o Late S. Sohan Singh,
2. Pawittar Singh s/o late S. Sohan Singh,
Both residents of VPO, Bhadal Bad, Barnala, Punjab.
.....Complainants
Versus
The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana
through its Chairman.
.....Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the complainants: Sh. Jaideep Verma, Advocate
For the OP : Sh. Prem Kumar, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2014 2 The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the C.P. Act') against the opposite party(hereinafter referred as 'OP') on the averments that late Smt. Bhagwant Kaur grand-mother of the complainants was originally resident of Pakistan, married to Late S. Bachan Singh and after his death, she was re-married with S. Inder Singh and from their wedlock Sohan Singh was born on 10.1.1946 in Pakistan and she migrated to India after partition in Village Taraf Burara, Ludhiana. She was allotted land measuring 1B-6B-9B, comprising in Khasra No. 466, 2134/463/1 in the revenue estate of Village Taraf Burara, Hadbast No. 168, Tehsil & District Ludhiana, which was lateron acquired by the Op and notification under Section 36 was issued on 8.6.1973 and then notification under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 was issued on 27.6.1974 for 400 acres development scheme known as Model Town Extension Part-II scheme and its possession was taken by the Op on 27.7.1976. OP had framed guidelines for allotment of plots carved out of the acquired land under 1964 Rules to allot alternative plots to the land owners, therefore, Smt. Bhagwant Kaur was entitled to alternative plot under the category of Local Displaced Person on priority basis and she applied for plot vide application dated 25.11.1983 and deposited earnest money of Rs. 500/- vide receipt No. 85041 dated 6.8.1985. Unfortunately, despite all genuine claim of late Smt. Bhagwant Kaur, the Trust had not allotted the alternative plot. She died on 28.12.1985 and her entire property devolved upon Late S. Sohan Singh father of the complainant and then it devolved Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2014 3 upon the complainants after the death of Sohan Singh but no alternative plot was allotted. The complainant filed CWP No. 19459 of 2010 for the quashment of the order dated 13.11.2002. Vide order dated 13.11.2002, the Trust had observed that the certificate of legal heirs is not genuine, which shows Bhagwant Kaur is widow of Inder Singh not Bachan Singh and it was also mentioned Sohan Singh s/o Inder Singh, therefore, the claim does not seem to be genuine and devoid of merit. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 29.10.10 held that the complainants while seeking quashing of the order dated 13.11.2002 cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction and the writ petition was dismissed with the liberty to the complainants to approach an appropriate forum in accordance with law. The complainants filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ludhiana and during the pendency of the Civil Suit, two letters dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 written by the Principal Secretary of the Department of Local Bodies, Punjab to the complainant that they are legally entitled for LDP plot and in case the complainants will withdraw the Civil Suit in that event the Trust would consider and decide the genuine claim of the complainants within 15 days and accordingly, the complainants withdrew the Civil Suit on 25.2.2014 and requested the Trust to decide the claim as per letters dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 but the Trust did not decide the claim and adopted an ignoring attitude, which necessitated the filing of the present complaint before the Commission with the request that the Op be directed to allot a suitable plot of area of measuring 500 sq. Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2014 4 yards in the development scheme alongwith compensation of Rs. 44 lacs and interest.
2. The complaint was contested by the Op, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainants are not consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act; complaint is barred by limitation; one Sohan Singh, who was a stranger and was not holding the GPA of Smt. Bhagwant Kaur applied for plot on her behalf and deposited earnest money of Rs. 500/- on her behalf without any authority whereas the complaint has been filed after a gap of 29 years, therefore, barred by limitation; the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant has prayed for allotment of plot measuring 500 sq. yards or compensation of Rs. 44 lacs in case plot is not available then they may be entitled to compensation of Rs. 20 lacs on account of escalation of construction, Rs. 14 lacs on escalation of sale price, Rs. 3 lacs on account of rent and Rs. 2 lacs on account of mental harassment and referred to Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. versus National Ins. Co. Ltd." and stated that the matter does not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission; the complainant is not LDP as defined in Punjab Improvement Trust (Utilization of Land & Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, the State of Punjab formulated these rules, which came into force w.e.f. 22.12.1983, according to these rules LDP means a person, who was owner of a land for a continuous period of 2 years immediately before the first publication published under Section 36 of the Service Rule and he will be entitled to plot provided he applied within a period of Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2014 5 three years from the date of taking over the possession and the land acquired by the Trust. Further he will be allotted a residential plot of 100 sq. yards in case the land acquired is not less than ½ acre. In this case, the land of Smt. Bhagwant Kaur measuring 972 sq. yards, which was less than ½ acre, therefore, her LRs were not to be allotted any plot according to these rules. The complainant has alleged number of documents in the shape of letters, revenue record, certificate, documents and have also raised some disputed questions of fact, which can only be resolved in the Civil Suit, therefore, the matter is liable to b e relegated to the Civil Court and that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP. On merits, framing of a development scheme known as Model Town Extension II Scheme has been admitted. Its notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act was published on 8.6.1973 and notification under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act was issued on 27.6.1974 and land of Smt. Bhagwant Kaur of 972 Sq. Yards, which was acquired by the OP and the award was passed on 27.7.1976. Whereas Sohan Singh, who was not the attorney of Smt. Bhagwant Kaur applied for allotment of plot under LDP by depositing a sum of Rs. 500/- as earnest money and order dated 13.11.2002 was passed by the Trust. Against the said order, the complainant filed CWP No. 19459 of 2010. Complainants are neither a consumer nor the LDP, therefore, they are not entitled to any plot. The complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
3. The parties were allowed to lead their evidence. Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2014 6
4. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajwant Singh Ex. CW-1/A, Jamabandi Ex. C-1, Depositing Slip Ex. C-2, death certificate of Sohan Singh Ex. C-3, Order dt. 13.11.02 Ex. C-4, Order dt. 19.10.2010 Ex. C-5, Civil Suit Ex. C-6, Written statement Ex. C-7, replication Ex. C-8, letter Ex. C-9, letter Ex. C-10, application Ex. C- 11, statement Ex. C-12, order Ex. C-13, letter Ex. C-14, assessment Ex. C-15, resolution Ex. C-16. On the other hand, OP had tendered into evidence affidavit of Supreet Singh Gulati, Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Ex. Op-1/A, letter Ex. Op-1, order dt. 13.11.2002 Ex. Op-2, High Court order Ex. Op-3.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The first question comes for determination is whether the complainants are consumer of the Ops. As per the averments in the complaint Bhagwant Kaur was owner of 1B-6B-9B comprising in Khasra No. 466, 2134/463/1 in the Revenue Estate of Village Taraf Burara, Hadbast No. 168, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Ex. C-1 is the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1973-74, in the remarks column there is entry of mutation No. 3029 on behalf of the Central Govt. vide which the land B0-B7-B11 in favour of Smt. Bhagwant Kaur widow of Bachan Singh and receipt of deposit of Rs. 500/- dated 6.8.85 has been placed on the record as Ex. C-2. Whereas the Ops have placed on the record one application moved by Sohan Singh alongwith application Ex. Op-1, affidavit of Smt. Bhagwant Kaur and the proforma in Annexure-A has been attached. Whereas Ex. Op-2 placed on the record, which was conveyed to Sohan Singh vide order Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2014 7 dated 13.11.2002 in which it was mentioned that the land belongs to Smt. Bhagwant Kaur widow of Bachan Singh and she was paid compensation for acquired land but deposit of earnest money after six years of acquisition of land by Sohan Singh in the year 1985, non- availability of GPA in the name of Sohan Singh as well Pardeep Kumar do not lend any credentials to the legality of the case. The Legal Heirs Certificate is also not genuine as it is shown Smt. Bhagwant Kaur as widow of Inder Singh and not Bachan Singh and even Pardeep Kumar vide his letter dated 23.3.2002 also mentioned Sohan Singh s/o Inder Singh, therefore, the claim does not seem to be genuine. The counsel for the complainant has referred to the letter dated 7.5.2012 written by Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana in the name of Principal Secretary, Local Self Government, Punjab, Chandigarh, which refers that after the death of Bhagwant Kaur, SDM (West) had issued a certificate of legal heirs that Sohan Singh is the only legal heir of Bhagwant Kaur and Rajwant Singh and Pawittar Singh are sons of Sohan Singh and after taking the advice of Advocate of Sh. S.S. Grewal, it was submitted to the Government to give further directions for allotment. However, the complainants had not placed on the record the certificate issued by SDM, Ludhiana (West) on what basis Sohan Singh was declared the legal heir of Smt. Bhagwant Kaur. Even the Government did not decide on the basis of legal advice given by S.S. Grewal, Advocate that Sohan Singh was the only legal heir of the deceased Bhagwant Kaur, therefore, in case the document on the basis of which Sohan Singh was declared as legal heir of Smt. Bhagwant Kaur and there is no Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2014 8 other evidence placed on the record to prove that after the death of Bachan Singh, Bhagwant Kaur had married with Inder Singh and from his lions, Sohan Singh was born otherwise when the mutation No. 3029 (Ex. C-1) was sanctioned, Bhagwant Kaur has been named as widow of Bachan Singh and not widow of Inder Singh. Therefore, it is question of disputed fact whether Bhagwant Kaur had married with Inder Singh or whether Sohan Singh was born from the lions of Inder Singh to Bhagwant Kaur and then the complainants are sons of Sohan Singh, which requires a lengthy evidence and in case any witnesses are examined by the complainants to support his claim then their cross-examination is required and we are of the opinion that this fact cannot be determined in the summary procedure.
7. No doubt that the complainants had filed a writ petition No. 19459 of 2010 before the Hon'ble High Court in Ex. C-5, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2010 with liberty to the petitioners to approach an appropriate Forum, if so permissible in accordance with law, then the complainants filed a Civil Suit for declaration before the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ludhiana that they are the predecessors to Bhagwant Kaur and are entitled to the plot as LDP but that suit was withdrawn on the representation made by the Ops that they will consider the allotment of the plot in favour of the complainants as LDP and accordingly, that suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.2.2014. Now in the consumer complaint filed by the complainants, the Ops have again taken the plea that the complainants are not the consumer as they are not legal heirs of deceased Bhagwant Kaur, therefore, in our Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2014 9 opinion it requires detailed adjudication with regard to factum whether the complainants are the legal heirs of Bhagwant Kaur, otherwise, they have not placed on the record sufficient evidence on the record that they are the legal heirs of Bhagwant Kaur, which can be adjudicated only by the Civil Court.
8. In view of the above, we dismiss the complaint with the observations that it requires detailed adjudication to adjudicate whether the complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Bhagwant Kaur, who was original owner of the property on the basis of which the complainants are raising their claim as Local Displaced Person with the liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court to adjudicate whether they are the legal heirs of the deceased Bhagwant Kaur and are entitled to a plot as a LDP.
9. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.7.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
10. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member August 4, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member