NAGAR PALIKA, NATHDWARA Vs. VIKRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.01.2011, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 602/2006, "Nagar Palika, Nathdwara versus Vikram & Anr." vide which while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 16.12.2005 allowing the consumer complaint no. 149/2005 filed by the present respondent, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that the mother of respondent no. 1 Vikram and respondent no. 2 Kishan Lal, got allotted two plots of land measuring 18 ft. X 37 ft., total 666 sq. ft. from the petitioner Nagar Palika, Nathdwara and deposited the necessary amount of Rs. 425/- vide receipts no. 141 and 143 dated 16.02.1983. The site maps for carrying out construction on the said plots were also sanctioned by the petitioner on 01.07.1983 on deposit of the necessary fees. However, the actual possession of the plots could not be handed over to the allottees as some other persons were found to be having possession on the spot. An assurance was given to the allottees that some other plots will be allotted to them, but it was not done. The complainants filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat whereupon the Chairman of the Board was authorised to allot the plot to the complainants. However, no plot was allotted to them. They filed the complaint in question, asking for the allotment of the plot and also suitable compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. The District Forum vide their order dated 16.12.2005 allowed the complaint and directed that the possession of the allotted plots measuring 18 X 37 ft., total area 666 sq. ft., should be handed over to them within two months of passing the order. In case, it was not possible to allot the plots then plots may be allotted at any other place. An appeal filed by the petitioner Nagar Palika before the State Commission was dismissed by the State Commission by the impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the petitioner, as stated in the reply to the consumer complaint says that the physical and actual possession was handed over to the complainants/respondents by the petitioner and permission for construction was also granted. Such permission is granted only when the possession has already been given. However, due to non-construction on the plots in question, the possession was taken over by some other persons. In fact, the complainants did not take any action for 22 years after the allotment of plots. They had filed the consumer complaint only to put pressure on the petitioner for allotment of another plot.