RAHUL KUMAR YADAV Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 21.09.2016 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 973 of 2015.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that the petitioner had purchased plot no. 33 in an open auction on 28.05.2007 as detailed in the complaint. Vide letter no. 1549 dated 06.09.2007 the petitioner was asked to take possession of the plot. When the petitioner visited the plot he found that the plot was encroached by the owners of house nos. 751 and 752 and two electricity poles were also standing therein. He brought this fact to the notice of the respondent/opposite parties on 14.09.2007 and was assured that encroachment would be removed immediately. The petitioner deposited Rs.2832.00 on 04.10.2007 in the office of the electricity department for removal of poles. Thereafter also he requested to remove encroachment of the neighbourers, who had filed a civil suit. Neither the encroachments were removed nor was the sale deed executed in his favour. Petitioner has requested that respondents be directed to remove the encroachment and deliver the possession of the vacant plot and pay compound interest on the amount deposit by him besides compensation for mental harassment etc.

(3.) The respondent/opposite parties alleged that plot was auctioned 'as-on-where-basis" which was clear from perusal of condition no. 21. Owners of plot nos. 751 and 752 did not encroach the plot purchased by petitioner, so there was no question of any undertaking about removal of encroachment. He was not assured about removal of poles etc. Civil Suit filed by Doctor Rajesh was dismissed for want of prosecution on 202.2012. As the petitioner did not deposit the documents, the conveyance deed could not be executed in his favour.