MANOHAR SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of judgment and order renderedby State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (herein after referred to as 'the State Commission') in complaint case No. 60/2006 dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 14.4.1981 for allotment of industrial plots of different types. The appellant submitted an application dated 20.5.1981 along with bank draft of Rs. 5,000 being the earnest money. Out of 3375 applicants, 339 were selected for the purpose of allotment of the plots on consideration of the project reports. The scrutiny committee of the respondents found that the appellant was eligible for allotment of two (2) kanal plot. By letter dated 12.11.82 he was allotted two kanal plot @ Rs.70 per sq. yard. He paid Rs. 12,500 on 10.12.1982 as per the demand. It is further an admitted fact that as a result of draw held on 30.11.1982, he was allotted plot No. 1289, industrial area, Phase-I as confirmed vide letter dated 23.12.1982. He deposited first instalment of Rs. 9,225 on 23.1.1984 by way of bank draft. He and similarly placed allottees were kept on waiting for delivery of possession for a considerable period. They were informed that due to legal impediments, the plots could not be allotted to them and the respondents were making an attempt to make some alternative arrangements. It appears that the original scheme was abandoned by the respondents because the land was unavailable due to objection raised by the Forest Department. The Forest Department and the Environment Ministry did not favourably consider the representation of the respondents and as such the plots could not be made available to the allottees, including the appellant. Some of the allottees filed Civil Writ Petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Writ Petition No.2453/1987 was partly allowed and the L.P.A. No. 1631/1991 was dismissed. The fall-out of the litigation in the High Court was that the respondents made alternative arrangement for the allotment of the plots. As per option made available, the appellant gave consent for allotment of lesser area, i.e., 1.5 kanal plot. They published a public notice (Annex. C-11) dated 21.11.2001. The name of appellant appears at serial No. 26 in that public notice as allottee of alternative plot No. 1289, Phase-II (Ext.). The litigation did not stop at High Court level. A number of Civil Appeals were preferred against common judgment dated 30.8.2000 rendered by the Division Bench, High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Some of the writ petitions were preferred by the allottees to whom possession was not delivered in respect of alternative plots allotted to them. Some of the writ petitions were filed by the non-allottees. Some of them were filed by those who had not consented for alternative allotment of the plots. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decided all the appeals by Judgement dated 13.4.2004.

(3.) The appellant was not a party to the litigation before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as well as in the appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.