MADHURI AHERWAR Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR seeking a direction to the opposite party to re -allot the Plot No. R -1/76, Raj Nagar Colony, Ghaziabad, the present complaint has been filed with the allegations that opposite party No. 1 i.e., Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad had executed the lease deed of aforesaid plot measuring about 990 sq. yards in favour of Smt. Rama Rana w/o Major H.S. Rana for a period of 90 years. The said Smt. Rama Rana transferred her lease deed of the aforesaid plot in favour of complainant Smt. Madhuri Aherwar after obtaining permission from the opposite party No. 1 and subsequently a sale deed dated 5.6.1981 was executed and thus it was pleaded that the status of the complainant in view of the transfer of lease and execution of sale deed became the lessee and in exercise of right she got the boundary wall constructed after spending a huge amount. The sanction of the map of the house was prayed and it came to the knowledge that non -construction levy charges are required to be paid and then in this connection the notification was brought to the notice which was questioned before the Hon ble High Court by way of Misc. Writ Petition No. 9924/1982. The interim stay was granted by the Hon ble High Court on 31.8.1982 which subsequently on account of non -prosecution the writ became infructuous. The complaint is of the year 2002.

(2.) IN this connection, one of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties was heard and Mr. R.K. Gupta, Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has also been heard. Both submitted that the present complaint with regard to the cause of action accruing in the year 1989 and it should not have been made a subject matter of complaint in the year 2002. Over and above, it was argued that the relief as claimed could not form part of a consumer dispute. We are impressed on both counts. In the instant case the cause of action for non -sanction of map without depositing levy charges was made clear in the year 1989. If at all if the complainant was aggrieved and was keen to file a complaint under the provisions of law as available under the Consumer Protection Act, it should have been done within two years in view of Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but that course has not been adopted. Filing of a writ petition, issuing of a notification, even if it is stretched to be the satisfactory ground for delay even then the matter does not travel to the satisfaction of the complainant s interest. The writ petition has also been dismissed for non -prosecution. Even then from the date of non -prosecution, within two years the complaint should have been filed which has not been done. Over and above, specific relief which has been claimed in the present complaint is as under: I. "Direction to opposite party No. 1, to re -allot the plot No. R -1/76, Raj Nagar Colony, Ghaziabad to the complainant which was purchased by the complainant from Smt. Rama Rana, vide sale deed dated 5.6.1981, after cancelling the illegal allotment to opposite party No. 2."

(3.) RE -allotment of Plot No. R/1/76, Raj Nagar Colony, Ghaziabad to the complainant which was admittedly purchased by the complainant from Smt. Rama Rana vide sale deed dated 5.6.1981 cannot be done after cancelling the allotment order in favour of opposite party No. 2. Such relief cannot be claimed by way of complaint. It will depend on number of factors and detailed evidence will have to be led and the venue will not be the Consumer Forum. For these reasons, we are of the view that the complaint has got no legs to stand. The complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.