GOVIND RAM Vs. BHATINDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plot no.15-C admeasuring 500 sq. yds. at Model Town, Phase-3, Bathinda was purchased by one Surjit Singh from the respondent Bathinda Development Authority in an open auction on 06.08.2003. Pursuant to the aforesaid auction, an allotment letter dated 14.10.2003 came to be issued to Sh. Surjit Singh. The aforesaid plot was purchased by the petitioner from Sh. Surjit Singh and pursuant to the said purchase, it came to be re-allotted in his name on 25.08.2005. The case of the petitioner is that there existed a transformer on two electricity poles, in the middle of the plot purchased by him, as a result of which he was not in a position to commence construction on the said plot. The petitioner therefore, sent a letter dated 23.06.2010 to the respondent authority requesting it to remove the aforesaid poles and transformer from his plot. The transformer installed on the poles however, was not removed. The petitioner then received a demand letter dated 28.06.2011, demanding a non-construction penalty of Rs.4,81,415.00 from him. He did not pay the aforesaid amount. Before he received the aforesaid allotment letter, he had deposited the stamp duty amounting to Rs.1,34,400.00 with the respondent authority on 26.11.2010 in order to enable the respondent to execute the Sale Deed of the plot in his favour. The Sale Deed however, was not executed. The petitioner then approached the concerned District Forum by way of two consumer complaints. In one complaint, he sought execution of the Sale Deed of the plot in his favour with compensation and in the other complaint, he sought quashing of the demand of Rs.1,34,400.00 and removal of the transformer from his plot.

(2.) The complaints were resisted by the respondent. It was stated in the reply filed by the respondent that the complainant having failed to complete the construction within three years from the date of allotment, the demand for non-construction penalty was fully justified. As regards the removal of the transformer, it was stated in the reply filed by the respondent that in fact the transformer had been installed on two poles on the boundary of the plot and not in the middle of the plot and therefore, it was very much possible for the petitioner/complainant to raise construction on the plot purchased by him from Sh. Surjit Singh. As regards the execution of the Sale Deed, it was submitted that unless the requisite dues in the form of non-construction penalty were paid, the Sale Deed could not have been executed in favour of the petitioner. However, the respondent was directed to remove the transformer since it had already deposited the requisite charges for this purpose with the electricity board.

(3.) The District Forum having dismissed the complaint filed by him, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals, the said appeals also having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.02.2016, he is before this Commission by way by way of these two separate revision petitions.