ADARSH NAGAR PRAGATISHEEL SEHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD Vs. CHET RAM & 23 ORS; NANAK SINGH; KM SEEMA SHARMA; SHYAM LAL; SUDESH KUMARI; DINESH KUMAR; HEMANT KUMAR; HAR BHAGAWAN DASS GOSAIN; SATYAWATI; SANJEEV SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 19.07.2017, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 270/2015, "Chet Ram & Ors. vs Adarsh Nagar Pragatisheel Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd.", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 05.12.2009, passed by the District Forum Ghaziabad in consumer complaint No. 1028/1998, filed by Chet Ram respondent No. 1 and 14 other complainants, dismissing all the complaints for lack of jurisdiction, was set aside. The District Forum was directed to decide all the matters in accordance with law, holding that the consumer fora had the jurisdiction to take cognisance of the complaints in question.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that 15 different complaints were filed before the District Forum by Chet Ram & Ors. (out of these 15 persons, 13 persons filed appeal before the State Commission) against the opposite party (OP) Adarsh Nagar Pragatisheel Sehkari Awas Samiti and its office bearers, alleging deficiency in service on their part, stating that the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the plots in question, despite receiving consideration for the same. It was prayed that possession be delivered to them in accordance with the allotment letters issued, and the registered sale-deeds already executed in their favour. In addition, compensation for mental harassment etc. and litigation cost should also be paid.

(3.) In the reply filed on behalf of the OPs before the District Forum, it was stated that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to take cognisance of the said complaints. Moreover, the sale-deeds in question, were executed in the year 1991, whereas the complaints made in the year 1998 were barred by limitation. It was further stated that the land in question, had been acquired by the U.P. Government for some development purpose and hence, the complainants could receive compensation from the Government. It was also stated that the issue could be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction only.