GOVIND DEWAJI CHAVAN Vs. WASUDEO AMBADAS BHUSATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated 27-12-2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yavatmal, in Compliant No. CC-139 of 2014, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay amount of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original complainants) for having prepared incorrect map of the property in question on 05-04-1991 and to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the said date. It is the contention of the petitioner, that he was not even a party in the complaint before the District Consumer Forum and that, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

(2.) On 20-06-2014, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed the said complaint before the District Consumer Forum in which respondent nos. 3 to 7 were added as opposite parties. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 were arrayed in the capacity of being developers of the property/lay out in which the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had purchased plots. Respondent no.5 was the Sub-Divisional Officer of Darwa, respondent no.6 was the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Yavatmal and respondent no.7 was the District Collector, Yavatmal. The grievance of respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the District Consumer Forum was that due to the documents prepared by respondent nos. 5 to 7 herein, the plots sold to them did not have approach road, thereby causing harassment and loss to them. It was contended by respondent nos. 1 and 2, that the developers i.e. respondent nos. 3 and 4 had delayed the development of the lay out, thereby causing loss to them. A perusal of the prayer clause of the said complaint shows that a restrainment order is sought against respondent nos. 3 and 4 by using machinery from undertaking any work in the plot in question. It is further prayed that respondent nos. 4 and 5 herein be restrained from undertaking any work in the said land. A further prayer is made for a direction to respondent nos. 3 to 5 to compensate the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the loss caused to them. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 specifically claimed that a map drawn by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Yavatmal i.e respondent no.6 herein had led to improper position of plots purchased by them, as a result of which, they had suffered loss.

(3.) Since, the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Yavatmal, was arrayed as opposite party in official capacity, the person holding the said post at the relevant time i.e. one Mukund Tatte filed reply on 30-10-2014, to the said complaint filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2. In the said reply, the allegations made regarding drawing of map in question were denied and it was submitted that the complaint be disposed of by taking into consideration the submissions made in the reply.