CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. SUNIL SINGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 2.4.2004 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short, hereinafter referred to as District Forum -I] in Complaint Case No. 1089 of 1999.

(2.) THE contextual facts of the case in brief are as under:

(3.) THE respondents/complainants bought Booth No. 78 in Industrial Area, Phase -II, Chandigarh in an auction on lease hold basis and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,57,500/ - (25% of the premium amount) which was adjustable against premium payable against lease vide allotment letter dated 6.5.1999. The main ground urged in the complaint is non -provision of amenities like street light, approach road, water supply lines, sewerage system, rain water drainage system and electricity etc. and the respondents/complainants have averred that due to above stated deficiency in service, they have not been able to raise the construction on the booth site in question. The complainants have alleged that though he got the paper possession of the plot but it is difficult to enter the area due to huge grass and heaps of garbage. It is impossible to demarcate his plot clearly and even the official, who had gone to deliver the physical possession could not locate the plot and only the paper possession was given to him till the filing of the complaint. The contention of the respondents/complainants is that as per Capital of Punjab Development and Regulation Act, 1952 and Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, the Estate Officer before auctioning the plots is duty bound to develop the area with provision of all the basic amenities like street light, approach road, water supply lines, sewerage system, rain water drainage system and electricity etc. but in the instant case this auction has been carried on in the absence of any of these amenities. The respondents/complainants has also alleged that in the past before the auctioning of plots, the Estate Officer received the report from Electricity Department, Sewerage Department to ensure the development of the area but this auction was carried on without seeking reports from above mentioned departments, the purpose of purchase has been frustrated. Due to aforesaid deficiency on the part of appellant/O.P. a prayer has been made for the provision of facilities to enable them to raise the construction on the plot in question and restrain the appellant/O.P. from charging the interest on the balance amount and the ground rent and lease money till the plinth level of the plot is given and basic amenities are provided. A compensation of Rs. 10 lacs for the harassment etc. has also been claimed.