SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -ORDER dated 10. 4. 2007 passed by the learned Divisional Forum, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum) has been challenged through the medium of this appeal. The facts of the case in brief are that Sanjeev Kumar and his father Sh. Narsingh Dass Sharma filed Complaint No. 96/06 on 7. 6. 2006 in the Forum making the allegations that shop No. 4 measuring 12ft X 18ft situated at Channi Rama, Jammu was allotted in favour of Sanjeev Kumar for consideration of Rs. 75,000 and the whole price of the said shop had been paid within time. Consequent upon receiving the price of the allotted shop lease-deed was duly got registered in favour of the appellant Sanjeev Kumar on 15. 11. 1995 before the learned Sub-Registrar and Secretary, Jandk Housing Board, Jammu wrote a letter bearing No. 5099-5100 dated 18. 11. 1995 (Annexure C) to respondent No. 2 for handing over the possession of shop No. 4 at Channi Rama, Jammu and a copy of the said letter was forwarded to appellant for information and he was required to attend the office of respondent No. 2 within week's time for the completion of the requisite legal requirements. In Complaint No. 97/06 letter bearing No. 5097/98 dated 18. 11. 1995 was addressed by Secretary, Jandk Housing Board, Jammu to respondent No. 2 herein for handing over the possession of shop No. 3 situated at Channi Rama, Jammu to appellant Ajay Kumar and a copy of the said letter was forwarded to appellant Ajay Kumar requiring him to attend the office of the respondent No. 2 within week's time for completion of the requisite legal formalities. The case of the complainants in brief in both the complaints is that after the registration of the lease-deeds, the possession of the above stated shop Nos. 4 and 3 was to be handed over to the appellants Sanjeev Kumar and Ajay Kumar respectively within 90 days but that was not done by the respondents. No information was given to the appellants herein within the stipulated period of 90 days to take the possession on a specific date. That after the expiry of 90 days, both the appellants on many occasions had visited the offices of the respondents and made fervent oral requests for putting them in possession but on every occasion they were being duped on one pretext or the other. That when their patience got exhausted, they were compelled to despatch two missives on 12. 3. 2005 to respondent No. 1 inter alia stating that, "but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the possession of the said shop site Nos. 4 and 3 could not be taken by them. " This was the common language employed in both the above stated communications along with a request for the issuance of necessary instructions to respondent No. 2 herein by respondent No. 1 to handover the possession of the shops in question. This hopeful step had gone hay-wire and ultimately they addressed a joint letter dated 27. 7. 2005 to the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Jandk Government Srinagar (Annexure E with the complaints ). The Private Secretary to Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Dev. Deptt. vide his letter No. PS/tsm/3/2003 dated 29. 7. 2005 (Annexure F) had drawn the attention of respondent No. 1 to look into the matter and take the immediate action under rules. Vide Annexure G the appellant Mr. N. D. Sharma again approached the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Jandk, Srinagar for issuing the instructions to respondent No. 2 herein for immediate action. Vide Annexure H, the appellants Sanjeev Kumar and Ajay Kumar again approached respondent No. 1 for getting the possession. When nothing was done to redress the grievances, appellant No. 3 (Mr. N. D. Sharma) was compelled to send a threatening letter dated 6. 1. 2006 to respondent No. 2 (Annexure I) wherein week's time was granted to settle the dispute failing which the matter was to be taken in the Jandk Accountability Commission. Ultimately, this technique proved successful in bearing the fruit because vide letter No. HB 5386-87 dated 21. 2. 2006 and No. HB 5392-93 dated 21. 2. 2006 respondent No. 1 informed appellant Nos. 1 and 2 that though they had failed to complete the requisite legal requirements for taking over possession in compliance to their office No. 5099-5100 dated 18. 11. 1995 yet a lenient view was taken and they were given final opportunity to attend the office of Deputy Manager, Housing Unit No. 11 within fifteen days from the issue of those letters for taking over possession, failing which, the allotments issued shall stand automatically cancelled. It appears from the record that on 24. 2. 2006 the possession of the shops was handed over to appellant Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) THE Forum below after considering the arguments of Mr. S. C. Mansotra, Advocate of the appellants, herein also had noticed in brief the communications addressed by the appellants to the concerned quarters which at his suggestion we have dealt with exhaustively. The Forum has held: How can it be said that OPs were at fault when the admission of complainants is there that despite allotment having been made by the M. D. Jandk Housing Board OP No. 1 and letter having been issued on 18. 11. 95 by OP No. 1 where under the complainants had been informed to take possession and Dy. G. M. , Housing Unit-1, Jammu had been also instructed accordingly. The complainants on their own because of unavoidable circumstances having not taken possession of the shops sites have requested to issue instructions to Dy. G. M. , Housing Unit -1, Jammu to handover the possession of shops to complainants. Both the complainants have admitted in writing that they were responsible for not taking possession of shop sites from 18. 11. 95 to 12. 3. 2005 because of unavoidable circumstances, how the fault can be found with the OPs. ". The Counsel of the appellants had been canvassing there that letter dated 12. 3. 2005 was addressed by the complainants therein at the insistence of OPs therein. This plea had found no favour because the letter in question was found to be voluntarily written by the appellants herein. The Forum was not swayed to allow the appellants to take advantage of their wilful delay and consequently dismissed the complaints without costs.

(3.) THE appellants through this appeal has challenged the order on various grounds, but amongst them the following are only worth mentioning: