MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FAZILKA PUNJAB Vs. SATWINDER SINGH & 2 ORS S/O JASWANT SINGH; DIRECTOR LOCAL BODIES, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB; DEPUTY DIRECTOR LOCAL BODIES FEROZEPUR, PUNJAB; MURARI LAL & 2 ORS S/O MILKH RAJ; GURBACHAN SINGH & 2 ORS S/O JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these three Revision Petitions by the Municipal Council, Fazilka, through its Executive Officer, is to the common order dated 17.5.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No.287-289/2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed three identical orders dated 23.2.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozpur (for short "the District Forum") in CC/442-444/2015. By the said orders, while allowing the Complaints filed by the Respondents herein against the Petitioner, alleging deficiency in service on their part in not executing the Conveyance Deeds in their favour in respect of the plots, which had been allotted to them sometime in the year 1989 and after constructing the houses thereon, they were peacefully residing, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to obtain permission from the State Government and get the Sale Deeds in respect of the subject plots executed in favour of the Complainants, within 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Hence, the present Revision Petitions.

(2.) The main ground on which the correctness of the aforestated directions is questioned is that on an enquiry having been conducted by a Senior Vigilance Officer in the Department of Local Body of the Government of Punjab, it was reported that at least 60 plots, including the subject plots were not auctioned as per the Government Rules and that the sale consideration in respect thereof was deposited with the Council in connivance with its clerk, who had also issued the official receipts for the amounts received as sale consideration. The stand of the Petitioner is that the transaction being fraudulent, both the Forums below have committed material irregularity in issuing the afore-stated direction.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel and perused the documents on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel.