Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Ranjwant Singh vs Improvement Trust on 4 August, 2015 cites

Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 2 April, 2003

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.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 171 - Full Document
1