JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. LAKHWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, the complainant filed a complaint against Jalandhar Improvement Trust, as he had purchased Plot No. 439-B in 170 Acres Scheme known as Surya Enclave, Jalandhar. He paid the entire consideration. The sale deed was executed in his favour on 03.06.2008 along-with site plan. Although, five years have elapsed, yet possession was not given to the complainant by the OP. It is alleged that the petitioner is putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, it transpired that the OP is affixing wrong number to deliver the possession of the said plot, which is situated near Cremation Ground. The grouse of the complainant is that that premises were never agreed to be sold and it amounts to be deficiency in service. Complaint was filed that the possession of the premises with geographical boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed, be issued in his favour, rent in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of litigation in the sum of Rs. 11,000/- was claimed. The case of the OP is that the complainant himself had refused to take the possession of plot No. 493-B, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar. It is explained that due to high tension lines of electricity passing over the plot of the complainant and due to security reasons, which were never explained, the OP made some changes in the layout plan. It was admitted that the layout plan was changed as per the new layout plan. However, the petitioner was being allotted plot No. 439-B. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the following directions:-

(3.) We have heard the counsel for the OP/petitioner, who has filed the present Revision Petition. It is stated that they did make any statement before the State Commission. The order passed by the State Commission is the brainchild of the State Commission itself. He contended that this order runs directly from the affidavit filed by them. It is also submitted that this order was reserved for arguments on 01.11.2013 and was announced on 14.11.2013. It shows that this statement was made extraneously otherwise, this Commission could have dictated the order there and then. We find force in his arguments, in a measure. If the judgment is delayed by 13-14 days, it is the duty of the State Commission to reduce their pleadings into black and white, there and then. The matter should have been delayed for such a long time. The State Commission should have passed the order on 01.11.2013 itself because there was no dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner's arguments also however, this measure fact does impact the case materially.