LAWS(NCD)-2022-8-39

JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. SATISH KUMAR

Decided On August 16, 2022
JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Appellant
V/S
SATISH KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 5/12/2017 in CC No. 533 of 2017.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that appellant had launched a freehold residential plot scheme known as Surya Enclave Extension and in that scheme the respondent / complainant was allotted plot no. 63D vide allotment letter dtd. 23/12/2011. The total cost of the plot was Rs.56,90,030.00 and respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.17,56,030.00. The contention of the complainant is that despite waiting for number of years, no possession was offered to the complainant and hence being aggrieved, he filed a complaint and claimed refund of his deposited amount along with interest and also claimed other reliefs.

(3.) Written statement had been filed by the Appellant wherein it is contended that possession was offered to the complainant in the year 2016 vide allotment letter. It was contended that Trust was always in a position to deliver the possession but the complainant did not come forward to execute the agreement, nor had paid the remaining instalments and obtained possession. It is submitted that complainant made a request for cancellation of his allotment of plot on 11/1/2016. It is submitted that in December, 2015 all the writ petitions in which status quo was granted by the Hon'ble High Court filed by some of the land owners were dismissed and, thereafter, public notice dated 23,03.2016 whereby more plots were carved out after the dismissal of the writ petitions. The complainant's contention that plot allotted to him was in dispute had no merit. It was further submitted that there was no provision of cancellation of allotment and refund of the amount under the Punjab Town Improvement ( Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plot ) Rules, 1983. It was further contended that entire development work including roads, sanitation, drainage and electricity had been done in the area of the plot where there was no stay. On these contentions, it was submitted that complaint was liable to be dismissed.