LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. JAGDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -VIDE this common order, we propose to dispose of two appeals bearing Appeal No. 1143 of 2001 (R. B. T. No. 315 of 2008) and Appeal No. 1086 of 2001 (R. B. T. No. 332 of 2008) received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against common order dated 7. 9. 2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 105 of 2001: Sh. Jagdev Singh v. The Ludhiana Improvement Trust.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the averments made in the complaint are that the Complainant purchased Plot No. 445e measuring 150 Sq. Yards in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana under the scheme of OP. The sale deed was excuted in his favour on 28. 11. 1994. As per the rules, sale deed is executed after receipt of all dues, which he had paid. Along with the sale deed, site plan was also appended and he got the same sanctioned for construction. Since the construction could be raised after taking the possession, the Complainant sought possession of the plot by demarking it on the spot. He even gave a reminder dated 15. 12. 1994 but in spite of that OP failed to give the demarcation or possession. The Complainant then requested Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana through two letters dated 30. 6. 1997 and 18. 7. 1997 to intervene for delivery of the possession. However, nothing happened and he received a notice dated 23. 2. 1999 vide which he was asked to explain reasons for not raising construction on the said plot. It was also stated that if no explanation was received within 15 days, the plot would be resumed. The Complainant replied to the notice on 6. 3. 1999 mentioning therein non delivery of possession as the reason for non-construction. However, due to a threat from the OP regarding resumption of the plot, he had to deposit Rs. 35,970 as non construction charges for the period from 1995 till 1999. Even thereafter he had been requesting the OP to deliver the possession but the same was not done. Ultimately, he was called upon through a letter dated 17. 5. 1998 to get the demarcation on any working day and in the last week of May 1999, the possession of the plot was delivered to him. It has further been stated by the Complainant that on possession, it was found that the plot measured only 149 Sq. Yards whereas he had been charged the price of 150 Sq. Yards. He, therefore, requested the OP to make up the deficiency in the area. Further, it has been stated that he cannot raise construction as his site plan was sanctioned on 20. 1. 1995 and this sanction had elapsed consequent to his inability to raise construction for the aforesaid reasons. The Complainant has, therefore, stated that he is entitled to refund of Rs. 35,970 illegally recovered from him as non-construction charges and he is also entitled to refund of Rs. 10,000, which is the price of 1 Sq. Yard of land delivered less to him and further, he is entitled to recover Rs. 1,50,000, which he will have to now send due to escalation in the cost of construction. Thus, in the complaint, the Complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay the above mentioned amount along with Rs. 2,548, which he had paid for getting the site plan sanctioned a second time and another Rs. 20,000 as damages.

(3.) THE version of OPs is that the Complainant deposited the non-construction charges without any protest and he now cannot claim its refund. It has also been clarified that the original allottee of the plot Sh. Baldev Raj had requested for extension of time for construction on 27. 4. 1984 and his request was accepted and, accordingly, the time was extended up to 4. 5. 1985 to raise construction. After that the original allottee continued to deposit non construction charges without any objection or protest and, therefore, even the Complainant who had stopped into his shoes, had deposited the non-construction charges. It has further been stated that execution of the sale deed on 28. 11. 1994, means that the possession of the plot had been delivered to him. It has also been clarified by the OP that there is no provision in the allotment letter that the construction will be raised after taking possession of the plot and it has further been clarified that demarcation was given to the original allottee and, therefore, it is presumed that the possession was already delivered. OP has also denied receipt of letters written by the Complainant on 29. 11. 1994 and 5. 12. 1994 and it has been categorically denied that the Complainant had been demanding possession of the plot.