JAI PAL PURI vs AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

-APPELLANT, Mr. Jai Lal Puri, (since deceased and now represented by his widow and daughter, Mrs. Janak Puri and Mrs. Kusum respectively) was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that late Mr. Jai Lal Puri was allotted a plot bearing No. 655-C in Basant Avenue, Amritsar measuring 500 sq. yds. as a ''local displaced person, @ Rs. 84 per sq. yard vide allotment letter dated 7. 1. 1993. The total cost of the plot, which worked out at Rs. 42,000, was deposited by 24. 3. 1993. Upon deposit of the requisite amount when the appellant /complainant approached Amritsar Improvement Trust for handing over the possession of the allotted plot, this was not done on the plea that the matter is pending with the State Government. Finally, the Amritsar Improvement Trust vide its letter dated 16. 11. 1999 informed the appellant/complainant that the market value of the plot was worked out at Rs. 25 lakh and he was required to deposit the balance amount after adjusting Rs. 42,000 already deposited by him way back in 1993. It is in these circumstances a complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint after directing the respondent No. 1 Amritsar Improvement Trust to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 12%, in case the appellant/complainant is not willing to pay the demanded market price. The State Commission arrived at this conclusion relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, II (1999) CLT 135 (SC)=iii (1999) SLT 306=1999 (1) PLJ 341, as well as on the ground that the Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of pricing. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us. Despite several notices none appeared on behalf of the respondents on 23. 4. 2007, 3. 8. 2007 and 24. 9. 2007, but on the final date of hearing, while respondent No. 1 was represented through a Counsel yet despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, hence they are proceeded ex parte.

We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent No. l and perused the material on record.

THERE is no disputing the fact that the allotment letter was issued in favour of the ''late Mr. J. L. Puri, by the Amritsar Improvement Trust on 7. 1. 1993 allotting plot No. 655-C measuring approximately 500 sq. yards @ 84 per sq. yard. Para 5 of the allotment letter is germane for our purposes, hence reproduced in toto: "5. The above price of the plot is subject to variation with reference to the actual measurement of the plot at site as well as in case of enhancement of compensation by the Court or otherwise and you shall have to pay the additional price of the plot, if any, determined by the Trust within 30 days of the date of demand. " A perusal of this leaves us in no doubt that firstly, this is a ''contract'' between the parties and secondly, the parties are bound by the terms of this contract.

A plain reading of this para will make it clear that the prices of the plot was to be varied in case of variation of the measurement of the plot and more importantly in case of enhancement of compensation awarded by a Court. Neither before the State Commission nor before us, the Amritsar Improvement Trust, nor for that matter the other respondents have brought any material to show that, either the area was more than the area allotted to the appellant/complainant, or the charging of enhanced price was occasioned by enhancement of compensation by Court. There is no disputing the fact that as per settled law, the Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of prices, but what we are talking about is not the question of ''pricing'' per se, but ensuring adherence to the ''terms'' of the contract, which in this case was the allotment letter (para 5 supra) issued by Amritsar Improvement Trust. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. l was candid enough to admit that the only ground on which the enhanced price/market price was asked for from the appellant/complainant emanates from the letter dated 15. 6. 1999, by Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government addressed to Amritsar Improvement Trust, which reads as under: "sub: Plot No. 655-C, Basant Avenue, Improvement Trust, Amritsar. Please refer to your Memo No. AIT/4523, dated 11. 11. 1998 on the subject noted above. The allottee may be given an option to pay the current market price of the plot to get the allotment regularised. Sd/-"

WE leave this matter at this stage to deal with the same issue, from an other important issues before us.

THERE is also no disputing the fact that the appellant was a ''locally disabled person'' and he had been allotted land under that category which remains unchallenged till date, despite all sort of possible inquiry, which the State Government would have conducted over a period of almost six years when the case was pending with them. In a Constitutional Democracy, all the limbs of duly constituted Government are governed by rule of law. There is no dispute, that for ''local-displaced-persons'', the Amritsar Improvement Trust had formed ''rules'' called the Amritsar Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1951 (as amended upto 31. 3. 1971), Clause 2 (b) defines ''local Displaced Persons'', as follows: " (b) ''local displaced person'' means a person whose own-property has been acquired by the Trust for the execution of the scheme or who had been a tenant of a property under the Scheme for a period of not less than one year prior to the first publication of the scheme by the Trust and continued as such till that property was acquired by the Trust and includes a person who is a claimant or allotable acquired evacuee property coming within the Scheme. "

Clause 5 (ii) of the rules reads as follows: " (ii) The Trust may similarly fix a concessional price at which land may be sold to Departments of Punjab Government, local authorities and public undertakings, bodies of public utility project, bodies duly registered for public purposes or public, charitable and religious institutions, local displaced persons, members of the armed forces or registered House Building Co-operative Societies of the employees of Punjab Government, local authorities or public undertakings, provided the sale of land to such departments, bodies, institutions, persons, members or societies would, in the opinion of the Trust, be beneficial to the purposes of the Scheme. The concessional prices shall not be less than the cost price of the land in the Trust, i. e. , the estimated cost of acquisition of the land plus development charges. "

(Emphases supplied) If we see not only the ''letter'' but also the ''spirit'' of these Rules, as we see through them, that the intent of the Government was to help rehabilitate ''local displaced persons'' whose lands had been acquired by the Government for a larger purpose, and yet helping them to rehabilitate themselves by providing land at a ''concessional price'' with a view to enable them to have shelter over their head. This comes out clearly from Rule 5 (ii), which has been reproduced above.

Since we did not have the benefit of hearing the Government, as to on what ground, after a period of almost 6 years, by a four-line letter reproduced earlier, they demanded of the appellant to exercise option to get the plot at ''market price'', we are constrained to draw an inference that the direction of the State Government was de hors of any law. In these circumstances on this subject we are unable to satisfy ourselves on the merit of this letter.

WHILE in Consumer Fora, we are conscious of our limitations, while exercising the powers conferred under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, about the fact, that we cannot go into the legality or otherwise of any Notifications/statute/regulations/rules framed by the State Government, but in this case at the cost of repetition, it needs to be stated that we do not have the benefit of hearing the State Government on putting-forth the ground (s) on which, or rule/law or whatever, under which they could ask for the current ''market price'' of the plot, from the appellant/complainant?, hence remains unexplained. The stand of the Amritsar Improvement Trust is that they are bound by the directives of the Government as per law. We have no quarrel with that, but in the absence of State Government showing us anything, either in terms of rules or any law under which they could ask for current market price?, we are unable to uphold this directive of the State Government, as, prima facie, it is contrary to both the letter and spirit of Rules for allotment of land to local displaced persons, which envisages allotment at a concessional price [clause 5 (ii) of the Rules (supra)]. Charging of ''market price'', after six years, in an inflation ridden economy can under no circumstances be termed as ''concessional price''. We are not going into the wisdom / viability of the State Government for sitting over the case for six long years without any valid reason when there was no specific complaint against allotment of land to the appellant, which itself is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. We have the benefit only of the ''letter of allotment'' and the Land Allotment Rules for ''local displaced persons'' (supra) and none of them permitted the respondents to charge the ''market price''. It not only militates against the terms of the contract, i. e. , the allotment letter but it goes contrary to the terms of the Rules for disposal of land / allotment of land to ''local displaced persons''. Any departure from the ''rules'' framed for the ''amritsar Improvement Trust'' could not have been varied arbitrarily, without introducing any amendment to the Rules (supra), which has not happened in this case. In fact this is not even the case of the respondents at all, thus strengthening our view that the action on the part of the respondents was not backed by any Rule/law, hence contrary to the terms of allotment. We have also very carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court (supra) relied upon by the , State Commission. In our view, this judgment has got no bearing in the instant case, because the issue before the Supreme Court was with regard to the definition of local displaced persons and whether the complainant therein was a local displaced person or not? This is not the case here, for the simple reason, as already referred to earlier, the State Government after a (hopefully) detailed scrutiny spread over nearly six years, decided to uphold the allotment made to the appellant under the category of ''local displaced person'', way back in 1993. Hence, this judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court does not apply on the facts of this case before us.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, in our view, the respondents were clearly deficient in rendering service to the appellants/complainants as no ground has been shown to us to demand market price from the appellant, thus varying the terms of the allotment letter, arbitrarily and without any notice. Here we would like to recall what Hon''ble Supreme Court had observed in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=air 1994 SC 787, that Consumer Protection Act is a piece of welfare legislation, and is an important check on the arbitrary exercise of power by the State. In view of above, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission which is set aside. Respondent No. 1 Amritsar Improvement Trust is directed to give possession of the allotted plot bearing number 655-C in Basant Avenue, Amritsar to the appellants/complainants (LRs of original allottee) at the original price which was deposited by the complainants way back in 1993. The Amritsar Improvement Trust shall, however, be entitled to charge any enhanced price if they find the allotted area more, or they had to pay any extra amount by way of compensation on the orders of any Court, as they are fully protected against the above contingencies under para 5 of the allotment letter issued by the Trust. The appellants/complainants shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% p. a. on the paid-up amount of Rs. 42,000 from the respective date of payment till date of possession by Amritsar Improvement Trust to the appellants/complainants. The appellants shall also be entitled to a cost of Rs. 5,000 payable by the respondent Amritsar Improvement Trust. This appeal stands allowed in above terms. Appeal allowed.