DES RAJ GUPTA vs LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST

STIRRING up the appellant jurisdiction of this Commission challenging the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated 16.7.1996, the complainants are the appellants before us.

FACTS in brief are that Shri Labhu Ram, who is the father of complainants No. 1,3 to 6 and husband of complainant No. 2, purchased a plot measuring 469 sq. yards situated at Ludhiana vide sale deed dated 5.4.1961 and out of the said purchased plot, land measuring 197 sq. yards was acquired by the opposite party - Ludhiana Improvement Trust - Ludhiana - in a scheme known as "Kidwai Nagar" on 16.3.1962. After the passing of the necessary award, the possession of the said 197 sq. yards was taken by the Improvement Trust. The said Shri Labhu Ram being a displaced person applied for the allotment of plot to the Trust and on the asking of the then Executive Officer of the Trust deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- on 9.8.1985. In spite of the correspondence being done from time to time, the Trust vide its order dated 17.2.1994 declined to allot the plot. On the notice being served, the Improvement Trust filed a written statement raising the jurisdiction pleas as well as contested the complaint on merits stating that the complainant is not entitled to any plot at all as per Lai-id Utilisation and Disposal Rules. The complainants filed the affidavit of one of the complainants Des Raj Gupta accompanied by documents and on behalf of the Improvement Trust affidavit of Sh. Surinder Aggarwal, Chairman of the Trust was filed. After affording due opportunities of being heard to both the parties, assisted by their Counsel, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order and hence this appeal by the complainants. Mr. Atul Mahajan, learned Counsel for the complainant-appellants had vehemently contended that under the assumed facts that the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land) Rules, 1986, are applicable to their case, the District Forum though has not specifically referred to the 1983 Rules has held that under the Rules, it has been laid down that only those displaced persons are entitled to the residential plots, whose land measuring not less than acre has been acquired as the land acquired of the complainants is less than acre, so they are not entitled to the allotment and hence dismissed the complaint. By placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court as reported in Parkash Wanti v. State of Punjab, 1994 HRR 655, the learned Counsel submitted that the case of the complainants was required to be examined in the light of the policy/rules with regard to the allotment of the plot then prevalent. The complainants certainly are not bound by any subsequent change, which may be made by the respondent with regard to the allotment of plot. In any case, any such policy can be prospective in its operation. The learned Counsel submitted that the case of the complainant was bound to be examined by me Trust, keeping in view the provisions of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1962. It has been fairly conceded by the learned Counsel that the land of said Labhu Ram was acquired on 16.3.1962 and possession thereof was taken before the coming into force of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964.

After careful going through the 1964 Rules placed before us, we have not been able to discern that the said rules will also govern the cases of those whose land has been acquired before coming into vogue that said rules. The contention raised by the learned Counsel cuts the throat of the case of the appellants. The rules are only executive instructions and guidelines and cannot be made effective retrospectively. Nothing has been pointed out to indicate that the rules are legislative in character. Be it may we have not been able to discern from the reading of the rules that they are enforceable retrospectively. The learned Counsel cannot pin-point any other policy under which the opposite party Ludhiana improvement Trust was required to proceed with the case of the appellants. Hence we do not find any weight in the contention of the learned Counsel and the same is rejected devoid of merits. Consequently, we cannot saddle the opposite party with any deficiency of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

AT the same time, the Improvement Trust cannot be permitted to indulge in unjust enrichment. It has been conceded by the Improvement Trust in its order dated 17.2.1994 that the amount of Rs. 500/- was deposited on the asking of the then Executive Officer Sh. Ajit Singh Thindoo. It is not disputed before us that the said amount of Rs. 500/- was deposited vide receipt No. 85784 on 9.8.1985. By any stretch of imagination the Improvement Trust cannot be permitted to forfeit the said amount and is under obligation to refund the said amount. Till today the said amount of Rs. 500/- has not been refunded to the complainant. Hence complainants are entitled to the refund of the said amount of Rs. 500/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 9.8.1985 till its payment. Consequently the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana is directed to refund the amount of Rs.500/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 9.8.1985 till its payment. For the reasons recorded above/we hold that in the non-allotment of the plot to the complainant, the opposite party has not rendered any deficiency in service, but at the same time the opposite party Improvement Trust, Ludhiana is held deficient in rendering service in retaining the amount of Rs. 500/- deposited on 9,8.1985 and direct the opposite party to refund the said amount of Rs. 500/- with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 9.8.1985 till its payment. Compliance of the direction be done within two months of the receipt of copy of the order. In peculiar facts of the case, no order as to costs. We partly allow the appeal in the term stated above and modify order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated 16.7.1996 in the said terms. Appeal partly allowed.