Jodhpur Vikas Pradhikaran Jodhpur, Rajasthan vs PRATAP SINGH

THE complainant/respondent got himself registered for allotment of a plot from the petitioner Jodhpur Vikas Pradhikaran, earlier known as Urban Improvement Trust, for allotment of a plot in its Kirti Nagar Scheme. On 03.10.1998, he was informed that plot no. B -85, measuring 83.61sq. meter had been allotted to him. He was required to deposit the price of the plot. The price of the plot was accordingly deposited by the complainant. However, the possession of the plot, was not handed over to him.

A notice in the newspaper was published by the petitioner on 25.05.2002, informing the allottees of plots in various schemes that they should submit their representation with respect to possession having not been given to them, alongwith documents if available, within a period of 15 days from the publication of the notice. It was further stated in the said notice that those who had deposited the prescribed registration fee at the time of allotment but were not allotted the plots and had not taken refund, could also submit their claim alongwith evidence.In response to the aforesaid notice, the complainant submitted a representation to the petitioner Board, stating therein that he had been allotted plot no. B -85 in Kirti Nagar Scheme, but on visiting the said plot, he came to know that it had been occupied for cremation ground. He requested the petitioner Board either to remove the encroachment from the said plot or allot some other plot. No decision was even taken by the petitioner on the representation made by the complainant.

A legal notice dated 14.12.2007 was then given by the complainant to the petitioner, seeking compensation as well as possession of the above referred plot. Since the notice did not yield any result, he preferred a complaint before the District Forum, seeking the following reliefs: - ''''(1) The possession of the allotted land no. B -85, area 83.61 sq. meter be handed over to the complainant.

(2) The compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - for mental torture and harassment.

(3) The cost of litigation Rs. 10,000/ -.

(4) If it is not possible to handover the possession of the allotted plot B -85, then a plot similar to the plots under the scheme be allotted at some other place and the possession of the same be handed over. ''''

The District Forum, vide its order dated 23.08.2011, directed the petitioner to handover the possession of plot no. B -85 in Kirti Nagar Scheme to the complainant. It was further directed that if it was not possible to handover possession of the above referred plot, in that case, possession of another plot of the same value and the same measurement under some other Scheme may be handed over to the complainant and the lease deed may be issued in his favour. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 2,000/ - as cost of litigation to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur. The said appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before us, by way of this revision petition. Since there is a small delay of 14 days in filing the revision petition, I.A. No. 5610/2014 has also been filed, seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though, the allotment came to be made in the year 1998, the complaint was filed in the year 2009 and therefore, it was clearly barred by time.

IT is an admitted case that the petitioner had issued a public notice dated 25.05.2002 inviting applications from the allottees, who had not been given possession of the plots allotted to them. The aforesaid public notice given by the petitioner gave a fresh cause of action to the complainant to make a representation, seeking possession of the plot, which was allotted to him in the year 1998. It is also not in dispute that the complainant did submit a representation, stating therein that the plot allotted to him in Kirti Nagar Scheme had been encroached upon and was being used as a cremation ground. We particularly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what decision, if any, was taken by the petitioner on the representation made by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no decision on the aforesaid representation of the complainant was conveyed to her.

IN our view, considering that the complainant had already made a representation to the petitioner Board, he was justified in waiting for appropriate decision on the representation instead of rushing to the Consumer Forum. It is not as if, he was altogether sleeping before approaching the Consumer Forum. He sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 14.12.2007. The petitioner being a public authority and ''State '' within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution, was expected to take appropriate decision on the representation which the complainant had made not of his own but pursuant to a public notice, issued by the petitioner board inviting such representation. The whole purpose of inviting the representations is defeated if an appropriate decision on them is not taken. In our view, it is not open to the petitioner board, not to decide the representation and on the other hand claim, when the aggrieved person approaches the Consumer Forum that the complaint is time barred. In any case, as noted earlier by us, the complainant was justified in waiting for appropriate decision on the representation made by him, followed by a legal notice sent by the complainant through his counsel.

COMING to the merits of the case, we find, on a perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner board before the District Forum that this was not the case of the petitioner before the said Forum that possession of the plot in question had been handed over to the complainant. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the possession was actually handed over to him and a licence was also issued to him in the year 1990, we can not entertain the submission, considering that no such plea was taken in the reply filed by the District Forum. Moreover, in case the possession was given to the complainant, there would be a document evidencing handing over of the possession to the complainant and receiving of the possession by him. No such document was filed before the District Forum nor such a document has been filed before us. Even in the revision petition, there is no averment that possession of the plot in question had been handed over to the complainant. In these circumstances, there can be no quarrel with the claim of the complainant that in fact despite allotment of plot and payment made by him, the possession was not handed over to him by the predecessor of the petitioner Board.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by the District Forum and the State Commission. Since, we are not inclined with the impugned order on merit, there is no need for us to consider the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. Revision petition and the accompanying applications are hereby dismissed.