LT. COL. RATTANJIT SINGH vs AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

LT. Col. Rattanjit Singh son of late Major Kishan Singh has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar on account of the following : (i) To pay Rs. 4,96,401.53 p. to the complainant on account of difference in construction cost of plot. (ii) To pay Rs. 3,60,000/- on account of rent paid by the complainant for the portion of the house taken on rent for his residence during the last 10 years, i.e. year, 1988 to 1998 as he could not construct his house due to gross deficiency on the part of opposite party. (iii) To pay Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment, agony, hypertension and other ailment suffered by the complainant and his wife due to gross deficiency on the part of the opposite party. (iv) To pay cost of the complaint. (v) Any other relief which this Commission deems fit and just.

ACCORDING to the complainant, he applied to the opposite party for the allotment of a residential plot and vide Allotment Letter No. AIT/SS/1552 dated 1.3.1988 a plot-No. 43 in Defence Colony, Ajnala Road, Expansion Scheme, Amritsar was allotted to the complainant by the opposite party for which agreement was executed between the parties on 11.6.1988. The total price of the plot Was 81,000/- and the complainant deposited 25% of the total value of the plot at the time of agreement and thereafter also deposited the balance consideration on different dates with the opposite party. After deposit of entire consideration the complainant requested many times for delivery of possession of plot and for execution of sale deed but the opposite party alleged every time that there was some litigation and the stay was operating against some portion of the plot, and thereafter on 20.1.1998 the opposite party executed sale deed of the above plot in favour of the complainant and delivered possession. It is alleged that the opposite party delivered the possession of the plot after the lapse of 10 years on the pretext that some part of the plot was under litigation and the stay order was operating that part of the plot. Due to gross deficiency in rendering service for belated delivery of possession of this plot and execution of sale deed, the complainant filed a complaint seeking aforesaid relief. The Amritsar Improvement Trust-opposite party, in reply has stated that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has got no locus standi to approach this Commission. On merits, the opposite party mainly admitted the facts narrated in the complaint. However, it is stated in the written version filed by the opposite party that the said plot will be transferred in the name of the complainant as soon as the answering respondent, i.e. Amritsar Improvement Trust gets the possession of the same part of the said plot, which is under litigation in Karam Singh & Ors. v. A.I.T., pending in the Civil Court. Thereafter, the complainant gave his consent to all terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter and full payment of the plot by way of interest-free instalments as and when they became due to the opposite parties. It is stated that some part of the land of Diwan Singh, which was not acquired is situated a little away from the scheme, but however a passage (Rasta) going to that land passes to this plot regarding which the said Diwan Singh filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the Civil Court in which on 14.5.1980 the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Shri M.L. Malhotra directed to maintain the status-quo till 24.5.1980 and status quo order continued in one form or the other and after a spurt of litigation, ultimately the matter is pending in form of a Regular Second Appeal No. 2643 of 1993 before the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein status quo order still continues. In view of the stay order passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction, the opposite party-Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar is unable to hand over the clear possession to the complainant. It is admitted that due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the officials of the opposite party upon wrong information furnished qua khasra numbers by the complainant himself vide his letter dated 7.11.1997, the Improvement Trust got sale deed effected on 20.1.1998 in favour of the complainant. It so happened that the complainant in application stated that khasra number of plot No. D-43 was 96/7/2 and 8/1 min., believing the complainant, the status of Khasra No. 96 and min. 7/2 and 8/1 was got checked from record and as there was no stay qua these khasra numbers, the sale deed was effected. Later-on, it was found that the complainant had furnished wrong information and factually the plot No. D-43 comprises of Khasra No. 96/7/1, 7/2, 426 Min and 14 Min. Out of these Khasra Nos. 96/7/1 is subject-matter of the civil suit filed by Sh. Diwan Singh and others in which status quo order passed by the Court way back in the year 1980 is still continuing as directed by the Hon''ble High Court.

To support their respective versions both the parties produced evidence by way of affidavits and documents. An amended written statement of the opposite party was also taken on record.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the material on record. Annexure-I is a copy of an agreement and sale deed between complainant and opposite party of plot No. 43 in Defence Colony, Ajnala Road, Expansion Scheme, Amritsar. Annexure - 7/1 is an allotment letter in favour of the complainant of plot No. 43. Annexure 7/6 is a letter from the Chairman, Amritsar Improvement Trust, showing his inability to deliver the possession of the plot as some portion of this plot was still under litigation. Annexure-15 is copy of judgment in Karam Singh v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, delivered by Mrs. Sunita Kumari, Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amritsar. The complainant has filed his own affidavit affirming the pleadings in the complaint to be true and correct. In another affidavit the complainant has also sought interest on the amount of Rs. 84,800/- @ 18% per annum, which remained with the opposite party, w.e.f. 1988 to 1998. The complainant has also filed an affidavit of his wife Mrs. Arvinder Kaur, resident of 226, Kang Villa, Railway Link Road, Amritsar. Annexure-19 is an application addressed to the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Amritsar for handing over of possession of the said plot No. D-43.

THE respondent, Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar has filed an evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Rattan Singh, Assistant Trust Engineer, copy of judgment of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amritsar, Site Plan of plot No. D-43 in Ajnala Road Expansion Scheme, Amritsar (Annexure Al), copy of order of Hon''ble High Court for Punjab and Haryana of Civil Misc. No. 4039-C of 1993 in Diwan Singh v. Amritsar Improvement Trust etc. A copy of letter (Annexure-C) dated 24.5.1999, show cause notice for cancellation of plot. Annexure-10 Condition for Be-nama dated 29.5.1998 (sale deed). From the above this would go to show that the possession of the plot in question was delivered to the complainant on the application of Mrs. Rattanjit (Annexure-19) dated 7.11.1997 which is reproduced as under : "226, Kang Villa, Railway Link RD Amritsar. Tel. 224967. Dt. 7th Nov. 97. To, The Chairman, Improvement Trust, Amritsar. Sub : Handing Over of Possession of Plot D-43 of Ajnala Road Expansion Scheme. Sir, I would like to state that I had made the complete payment for the said plot by December, 1989. However, the possession of the plot has not been given to me so far. It is requested that the possession of the plot may be given to me at the earliest to allow me to commence construction on the plot. The khasra No. of the plot D-43 is 96 and the min 7/2, 8/1. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Mrs. Rattanjit (w/o Lt. Col. Rattanjit Singh)"

Sh. Rattan Singh, Assistant Trust Engineer, Improvement Trust, Amritsar has stated (page 83 of the file) in his affidavit that after perusal of the case file, he came to know that sale deed/possession qua Khasra No. 96/7/2 and 8/1 Min. was wrongly effected in favour of the complainant on the basis of wrong information furnished by him to the Improvement Trust. It is pleaded that it so happened that Mrs. Rattanjit w/o Lt. Col. Rattanjit Singh made an application on behalf of his husband Lt. Col. Rattanjit Singh, to the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Amritsar, for the possession of the plot in question and in her application stated that Khasra No. of plot No. D-43 was 96 and the Min. 7/2, 8/1, believing the status of Khasra Nos. 96 and Min. 7/2 and 8/1 as correct, was got checked from the records and as there was no stay qua these khasra numbers, the sale deed was effected. After sometimes the officials of the Trust came to know that Mrs. Rattan w/o Lt. Col. Rattanjit Singh had furnished wrong information and factually the plot No. D-43 comprises of Khasra No. 96/7/1, 7/2, 426 Min. and 14 Min. out of these Khasra No. 96/7/1 is the subject-matter of the civil suit filed by Diwan Singh and others in which status quo order passed by the Court way back in the year 1980 is still operating as directed by the Hon''ble High Court. The Counsel for the complainant has controverted these pleadings and asserted that in fact the opposite party had entered into an agreement to sell the plot No. D- 43 having area of 100 sq. yards, was allotted to the complainant, which was having Khasra Nos. 97/7/2 and 8/1 and these khasra numbers were disclosed by the officials of the opposite party to the wife of the complainant. Sh. Rattan Singh, Asstt. Trust Engineer in his affidavit (page 74) has stated that sale deed and possession could not have been effected by the Trust in view of the orders of the Hon''ble High Court as it amounts to Contempt of Court. The opposite party in order to correct its bona fide mistake has issued a show-cause notice to the complainant. Complainant in order to undo the said mistake and maintain status quo as per order of the Hon''ble High Court. We have seen Annexure - ''D-B''. The operative part of the order of R.S.A. 2643 of 1993, Civil Misc. No. 4039-C of 1993 in Diwan Singh v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, is as under : "Upon motion made unto this Court by Sh. Sarwan Singh Advocate, Counsel for the appellant and upon considering the petition of the appellant filed in the matter on .6.12.1993 this Court doth order that an ad-interim injunction be and the same is hereby issued to you to maintain status quo with regard to possession till further orders."

IT is clear that the subject-matter is under litigation and stay is operative against this plot No. D-43, which forms part of Khasra No. 96, 7/1.

THE complainant has failed to lead any documentary or convincing evidence to show that the Khasra No. 96, 7/1 do not form part of plot No. D-43. Amidst the argument the complainant, who was present in person declined to exercise any option for allotment of an alternative plot. He has also failed to produce the evidence that he has raised any structure on the aforesaid plot No. D-43. THE complainant has failed to convince that no stay is operating against the Khasra No. 96, 7/1 which forms part of plot No. D-43. It is now clear that a civil case is still pending in the Hon''ble High Court and finding of the Hon''ble High Court may have bearing on the question of allotment of plot. After examining all these aspects we are inclined to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite party that it is a matter where we have to wait till the stay order is vacated or the case is finally disposed of by the Hon''ble High Court and hence the complainant should seek redressal in competent Court of jurisdiction. THE jurisdiction of this Commission being of summary proceedings of law and facts should be left for decision in the appropriate Court. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed without any determination on merits. We are not inclined to express any opinion, which may influence the decision of the competent Court if the case is filed. In the circumstances, the complaint is disposed of with the above order with no order as to costs. There is no bar for the complainant to seek remedy under the laws, if so advised. Complaint dismissed.