IMPROVEMENT TRUST GURDASPUR Vs. SATYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Gurdaspur on 17.6.1996 allowed the complaint of Satya Devi with the direction to the Improvement Trust, Gurdaspur to deliver possession of an alternative plot of the same size in the same locality to the complainant within one month and to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation and Rs.500/-as costs of litigation. On Rs.5.000/-, the Trust was also to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum after expiry of a month from 17.7.196. The Improvement Trust-opposite party challenges this order in this appeal.

(2.) The case of Satya Devi complainant briefly was that she had applied for allotment of the plot in June, 1990 the same was allotted (Plot No.22 in Scheme No.1 ). She paid the entire amount as per terms and conditions of the allotment in instalments by 12.1.1993. However, the trust did not deliver possession of the plot that she had to file the complaint. The Improvement Trust contested the complaint inter alia asserting that Krishan Lal, husband of Satya Devi was allotted plot No.15 in Scheme No.1 and on payment of the entire amount, he was delivered possession. As per directions of the State Government and conditions of the scheme, second plot could not be allotted to Satya Devi wife of Krishan Lal. Other facts that Satya Devi had applied and paid the amount of Rs.85,600/-for securing plot of 200 sq. meters were not disputed. The District Forum in the order as stated above directed delivery of possession and payment of compensation and costs.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Improvement Trust has argued that as per Government instructions, two plots could not be allotted to the family. Krishan Lal having been allotted a plot and on payment of the price, possession delivered, his wife Satya Devi could not be allotted another plot. Although, details of the applications moved by Krishan Lal and Satya Devi as such were not brought on the record. However, during arguments, learned Counsel for Improvement Trust stated that Satya Devi's application was registered earlier than that of Krishan Lal though received on the same day. Both of them were allotted plots on the same date, i. e.12.6.1990. Krishan Lal was delivered possession on payment of the entire price whereas possession was not delivered to Satya Devi although she had paid the entire price of Rs.85,600/-. It is in such circumstances that applicability of the instructions so called is for consideration. This is so stated because neither copy of the instructions was produced before the District Forum nor before this Commission. It is only for the purposes of deciding the argument advanced in this appeal that it is assumed that such instructions do exist. Since the application of Satya Devi was registered earlier as is now stated, allotment made to her would be prior in matter of time, though both Satya Devi and Krishan Lal were allotted plots on the same date. It is subsequent allotment, if any, was illegal contravening such instructions that the Improvement Trust was required to take prompt action for its cancellation. Further comment is not necessary as allotment or cancellation of the plot in the name of Krishan Lal is not the subject matter of dispute in this appeal.