JASWINDER KAUR Vs. ESTATE OFFICER ESTATE OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal has been directed by the complainants against order dated 27. 4. 2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which their complaint was dismissed being meritless.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Smt. Nachhattar Kaur (now deceased) was the mother-in-law of Jaswinder Kaur appellant No. 1 (complainant No. 1) and mother of Kesar Singh appellant No. 2 (complainant No. 2 ). She had moved an application to the Estate Officer on 11. 8. 2005 for issuance of 'no Objection Certificate' (NOC) for transferring her shop- cum-flat No. 16, Sector-9d, Chandigarh in favour of her daughter-in-law Jaswinder Kaur appellant No. 1 through an instrument of gift deed. The copy of the receipt issued by the respondent is annexure C-1. The date of delivery of NOC recorded on Annexure C-1 is 23. 9. 2005.

(3.) IT was next averred that after due date of 23. 9. 2005, they visited the office of respondent several times and ultimately vide letter dated 23. 12. 2005 respondent informed Nachhattar Kaur that her request for grant of NOC for transferring the said property in favour of her daughter-in-law-appellant No. 1 through an instrument of gift deed had been declined because the site in question already stood resumed due to building violations. However, Nachhattar Kaur filed appeal against communication dated 23. 12. 2005 of the respondent before the Appellate Authority and Sh. P. S. Aujla, Commissioner, Municipal corporation exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, U. T. Chandigarh under the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation ) Act,1952 vide order dated 25. 5. 2006 (annexure C-2) held that appellant No. 1 being an old lady was suffering at the hands of the staff of Estate Office,u. T. Chandigarh and such like happening should be checked and possible action should be taken against delinquent officials. Consequently the case was remanded to the Estate Office for passing a speaking order within two weeks from the date of order after affording an opportunity to the appellant No. 1 and ultimately NOC was issued as it was found that the order resuming SCF for building violations was cancelled later on.