State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Estate Officer Amritsar Development ... vs Mukhwinder Singh on 6 May, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.250 of 2025
Date of Institution : 24.03.2025
Reserved on : 10.04.2026
Date of Decision : 06.05.2026
Estate Officer, Amritsar Development Authority, Green Avenue,
PUDA Bhawan, Amritsar-143001 now Shri Guru Ram Dass Urban
Estate, PUDA Bhawan, Amritsar-143001.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Mukhwinder Singh S/o Narinjan Singh owner of H.No.307;
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Gurdeep Sarangal owner of H.No.306;
3. Ramandeep Kaur W/o Harjit Singh owner of H.No.305;
All R/o PUDA Colony, Urban Estte, G.T. Road, Batala,
Gurdaspur, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur-143521.
.......Respondents No.1-3/Complainants
4. Chief Administrator, Amritsar Development Authority (PUDA)
Green Avenue, PUDA Bhawan, Amritsar-143001 now Shri
Guru Ram Dass Urban Estate, PUDA Bhawan, Amritsar-
143001.
5. District Town Planner Authority, D.C. Complex, B-Block, Room
No.407 to 409, Gurdaspur, 143521.
.......Performa Respondents No.4 & 5/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3
First Appeal under Section 41 of
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting
aside the order dated 22.08.2024 passed
by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur
Consumer Complaint No.256 of 2021.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Appellant : Sh. Ashish Grover, Advocate with Sh. Vikrant Thakur, SDE and Sh. Prabhjot Singh, ATP 2 First Appeal No.250 of 2025 For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Harwinder Kaur, D/o Sh. Mukhwinder Singh, in person For Respondents No.2&3: None For Respondents No.4&5: None
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The Appellant/OP No.2, i.e. Amritsar Development Authority, through its Estate Officer has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the 'Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (in short the "District Commission") in Consumer Complaint No.256 of 2021, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed.
2. There was delay of 150 days in filing of the Appeal. M.A. No.360 of 2025 was filed for condonation of delay which was supported by an Affidavit. Notice in the Complaint as well as in the main Appeal was issued. Thereafter, reply to the Application was filed by the non-Applicants. The Application for condonation of delay was allowed and delay was condoned subject to cost vide order dated 01.08.2025. Said Application was disposed off accordingly. 3 First Appeal No.250 of 2025
3. Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainant which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Complainant being aggrieved by the action of the OPs had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer :-
"It is, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to restrain from raising construction of toilets in the parks as per the amended drawing and maintain the parks as shown in the earlier drawing mentioned above, in the interest of justice."
4. Upon issuing notices in the said Complaint to the OPs, they had appeared and filed written version wherein certain preliminary objections were raised and other averments made in the Complaint were denied.
5. By considering the averments made in the Complaint and replies thereto and as well as the oral arguments raised by the Counsel for the parties and the documents available on record, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 22.08.2024. The relevant part of the order as mentioned in para 18 is reproduced as under :-
"18. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are restrained from converting green space/parks adjoining the shopping complex into toilets/drinking water and are further directed to restore the position of the parks and green area as per drawing No.DTO (G) 11/11 dated 29.08.2011 within 45 days after receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs."4 First Appeal No.250 of 2025
6. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the District Commission, OP No.2 has filed the present Appeal by raising a number of grounds.
7. Mr. Ashish Grover Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP No.2 has vehemently argued that the District Commission while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration a material fact that the Complainants were not the Consumers of the Appellant with regard to dispute involved in the Complaint. The Urban Estate Gurdaspur was carved out by the Appellant and the Respondents were allottees and purchasers of the plots. Further, it has been submitted that the complainants alleged that they had purchased the plots after considering the drawing dated 29.08.2011 and they beings the owners could have approached the District Commission for any grievance regarding the allotment of the plots and not for the adjoining area which was reserved for shopping complex. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Green Belt in the commercial area was to be affected due to construction of bathroom/toilets and site for drinking water. The District Commission had issued the directions while passing the order by taking into consideration the Complainants to be "Consumers" of the entire Urban Estate Gurdaspur. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the District Commission had gone beyond the jurisdiction while holding the Complainants as "Consumers" of the Appellant and as such the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District 5 First Appeal No.250 of 2025 Commission has also not taken into consideration a material fact that the conversion of the part of Green Belt into Toilet/Drinking Water facility is not a case of 'deficiency in service' on the part of the Appellant. There was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the Appellant qua the allotment of plots owned by the Complainants. Further, it has been submitted that the District Commission has also not taken into consideration a material fact that the Complaint was barred by limitation and it was liable to be dismissed as the revised drawing dated 28.07.2017/12.02.2018 has been challenged which was approved by Planning and Design Committee in meeting dated 19.03.2018 whereas the Complaint was filed on 02.12.2021. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission had also overlooked a material fact that the drawings were revised by the Competent Authority in accordance with law and there was no requirement for providing any opportunity of hearing to the Complainants or other inhabitants of the residential area for any change in the Commercial Belt but this fact has not been taken into consideration. Further, it has been submitted that the District Commission while passing the impugned order has not considered a material fact and legal issue that Consumer Court was lacking jurisdiction to adjudicate any alleged illegal or unconstitutional act of Appellant and the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside by allowing the present Appeal.
8. Ms. Harwinder Kaur daughter of Sh. Mukhwinder Singh (Respondent No.1) while appearing in person for Respondent No.1 6 First Appeal No.250 of 2025 has submitted that the layout of Urban Estate Gurdaspur was done in the year 2011 with the Master Plan drawing No.DTP(G)/11/11 dated 29.08.2011. The plot was purchased in the same area and in accordance with the Master Plan in front of the plot in dispute there was an open space/green belt which was specifically earmarked as Park No.16 in the Master Plan Drawing dated 29.08.2011. Respondent No.1 had already occupied the building in the year 2015 on completion of construction and the OP had amended the drawing in the year 2018 in an arbitrary manner and converted the position of the part into Public Toilet and Water Facility which amounts to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice'. Further, it has been submitted that the conversion of the park/green belt into Toilets and water tank is strictly prohibited in the eyes of law in view of a number of judgments of various Courts. It has further been submitted that all the family members would be affected by bad smell and their health would be affected due to poor sanitation. At the end, it has been submitted that it is a case of change of Master Plan which has not only caused the financial loss but the greenery of the area would also affect. She has relied upon judgments of cases (1) "M/s TDI Infratech Ltd. vs. Swaraj Singh Anand & Anr.", F.A. No.131 of 2024, decided on 09.08.2024 (this Commission), (2) "M/s. Aakruti Amity Apartment Owners Association & Ors. Vs. Aakruti Relators & Ors", C.C. No.3644 of 2017, decided on 01.01.2024 (NC), (3) "Rachit Gupta vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors", W.P. (C) 13633/2024, decided on 16.02.2026 (Delhi High Court), (4) "Lal Bahadur vs. State of Uttar Pradesh", 2017 (SC), (5) "B.S. Mudappa vs. Bangalore Medical Trust", 7 First Appeal No.250 of 2025 1991 (SC), (5) "M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath", 1996 (SC), (6) "Virender Gaur vs. State of Haryana", (SC), (7) "Dr. G.N. Khajuria vs. Delhi Development Authority", 1996 (SC), (8) "Chet Ram Vashisht vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi", 1995 (SC), (9) "Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar", (SC), (10) "M.I. Buiders vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu", 1990 (SC), (11) "Preeti Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", 2021 (Madhya Pradesh High Court), (12) "Jan Kalyan Smiti vs. State of Haryana & Ors", 2020 (P&HHC), (13) "D.D. Vyas vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority", 1992 (Allahabad High Court), (14) "Residents Welfare Association vs. Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran", (National Green Tribunal) and (15) "Vishnu Singh Tech Citizen Welfare Society vs. M/s Shubhalay Villa & Ors", 2025 Supreme (Online) NCDRC 3397 in support of her oral arguments.
9. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant and also Ms. Harwinder Kaur who has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1. However, none has appeared on behalf of Respondents No.2 & 3. Respondents No.4 & 5 are the proforma Respondents. We have also carefully perused the others documents/evidence available on record.
10. Facts relating to filing of Complaint by the Complainants before the District Commission and reply thereof and partly allowing the Complaint vide order dated 22.08.2024 and further filing of Appeal by the Appellant/OP No.2 before this Commission being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Commission are not in 8 First Appeal No.250 of 2025 dispute. Undisputedly, the Respondents No.1-3/Complainants had purchased the plots from the Appellant by taking into consideration the drawing dated 29.08.2011 wherein there were park No.16 and 15 along with the shopping complex. Thereafter, said park was changed and as per drawing dated 28.07.2017/12.02.2018 the bathroom/toilet were reflected in the front of the park and shopping complex. It is pertinent to mention here that initially the Developer had left some part of land as green belt and on the basis of it the Complainants had purchased the plot. Meaning thereby, the Developer had shown rosy picture to the purchasers at the time of selling of the plots but later on changing of drawings is 'deficiency in service'. Moreover, the District Commission had rightly observed that the parks and green belts help in purification of air and also prevent the pollution. Green belts and parks are also instrumental in maintaining ecological balance and are necessary for the enjoyment of life and in the circumstances, it is necessary that green areas and parks in the colonies are maintained to protect environment and ecology and well being of the residents of the colony and opposite parties cannot be allowed to encroach upon and convert the green areas/parks into toilets/drinking water facility for their benefits and without notice to the residents. The District Commission has further observed that from the evidence, facts on record, it is proved that opposite parties had indulged in the amendment/change in the drawing unilaterally without issuing notice to the Complainants and other inhabitants of the colony. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed in Varinder Gaur's case 9 First Appeal No.250 of 2025 (supra) that the right to a clean, hygienic and pollution free environment is a fundamental component of the right to life under Article 21. The case established that ecological balance and sanitation are essential for human dignity. In case Dr. G.N. Khajuria (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the Delhi Development Authority decision to allot park land for a nursery school, deeming it a misuse of power and a violation of the Open Space Reservation Principles. The Court's legal reasoning pivoted on several constitutional and statutory provisions.
11. In view of above detailed discussion and also the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
12. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
13. The Appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER May 06, 2026 (MM)