Maa Kamaksha Marble Industries vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

THIS Appeal is directed against the order dated 20th December, 1994 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Commission at Bhopal, dismissing the complaint.

IT is unnecessary to notice the facts in detail. The complainant applied for registration as small -scale industry and was granted registration vide certificate of registration dated 16.8.91. He submitted an application for allotment of a plot as stipulated under the Madhya Pradesh Industries (Allotment of Sheds, Plots & Lands) Rules, 1974. Letter of Intent dated 21.8.91 was issued to the complainant for allotment of a plot of 240 sq. mts. The complainant was however ultimately allotted a plot of 180 sq. mts. on 25.5.92 after he gave his consent. The complainant submitted the draft lease deed as per prescribed proforma of the opposite party and prayed for its execution. The complainant was, however, informed on 10.9.92 that no land was available with the opposite party for allotment to the complainant. The complainant then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, being M.P. No. 3759/1993. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed on 15.5.94 the order, the operative part of which reads as under: "The respondents have in their return, pointed out: that one plot No. 30 -A shown in red in the map is available and this can be allotted to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no objection for this allotment of plot, but this plot is not accessible by load and the respondents shall also be directed to give facility of water as well as electricity. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that all the facilities which are being given to other plot holders, shall be given to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to allot the petitioner Plot No. 30 -A shown in red in the map, filed by the respondents and they shall also give him same facility as are being given to other persons to whom the plots are allotted. The petitioner shall be given possession of the said plot within one month from today".

The possession of the plot was not handed over to the complainant by the opposite party as directed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the operative part of the order extracted above.

The complainant had filed an earlier complaint before the State Commission in which it was alleged that as the service with regard to allotment of industrial plot in industrial estate established by the opposite parties is service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant was entitled to seek the relief of possession of plot of land and also compensation for the deficiency in service. The opposite party produced the said order of the High Court before the State Commission. During the hearing, it was pointed out by the opposite party that the complainant in the writ petition had sought relief for the possession of land which is the subject -matter of the complaint before the State Commission and the High Court had already passed an order in the petition filed by the complainant. Thereafter, the Counsel for the complainant stated before the State Commission that this complaint was being withdrawn and that the complainant would file another complaint claiming compensation from the opposite party. The complaint was dismissed by the State Commission as withdrawn by the order dated 23.11.94.

THE complainant then filed fresh complaint out of which the order under appeal has arisen claiming from the opposite party a sum of Rs. 15.75 lakhs by way of compensation for the delay in. allotment of plot of land to the complainant. The State Commission in the impugned order held that the complainant while giving consent for allotment of another plot of land had given up whatever rights in the complaint, he was claiming in respect of plot of land which was alleged to have been earlier allotted to the complainant, that if there is non -compliance with the order passed by the High Court the complainant has to approach the High Court and that no case is made out for grant of any relief to the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was dismissed by the order dated 20th December, 1994 by the State Commission. The complainant filed an appeal before this Commission on 27th January, 1995. We had heard Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, advocate for the Appellant and Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate for the respondent and have gone through the records.

IT is pertinent to notice the contempt proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The complainant also filed Contempt, Petition No. 45/95 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court for non -compliance and disobedience of the order dated 5.5.94 passed in M.P. No. 3759/93 with regard to the allotment of the industrial plot to the complainant. The opposite party submitted before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the industrial plot No. 30 -A, could not be allotted to the complainant as the complainant could not get the lease deed executed and did not produce registration certificate, that subsequently plots numbers 16,17 & 18 had become available to the opposite party on cancellation of their original allotments on 7.8.95, that the complainant wrote a letter to the General Manager, District Industries Centre. Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh requesting to allot plot No. 18 and part of plot No. 17 total area 6400 sq. ft. to him in place of the industrial plot No. 30 -A and that the opposite party after considering the request of the complainant sympathetically allotted him plot No. 18 and part of plot No. 17 total area 6400 sq. ft. vide Order No. DIC -N/BF/95/6204 dated 17.8.95 and asked him to get the lease deed executed. In compliance with the revised allotment order dated 17.8.95, the complainant got the lease deed executed on 2.9.95 and the possession of the said plot was handed over to the complainant on 11.9.95. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the order dated September 19,1995 recorded the above facts and held that as the complainant had taken over possession of the two plots allotted to him by the Contemnor, the order of the Court stands complied with in letter and spirit and the petition was accordingly disposed of. The State Commission in view of the facts noticed above, was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the complainant while giving consent for allotment of another plot of land had given up whatever rights the complainant was claiming in respect of the plot of land which was alleged to have been allotted earlier to the complainant. During the hearings before the High Court, the opposite party was directed to find out whether there is any other plot available which could be allotted to the complainant so as to redress the grievance of the complainant. The opposite party found out an available plot. At the time of hearing before the High Court, the complainant agreed that it would not have any objection to the allotment of another plot of land provided the opposite party offered certain facilities to the complainant and the High Court accordingly gave directions in the order extracted above. The complainant was duly informed that the plot allotted vide letter dated 25.5.92 was not vacant and hence possession could not be delivered to the complainant. The opposite party claimed that there was no negligence on their part in non -delivery of possession. It is that order dated 25.5.92 which was challenged by the complainant before the High Court. By accepting the allotment of an alternative plot the complainant gave up his claim, if any, for the delay in the delivery of possession of the original allotted plot. The complainant is estopped from claiming a sum of Rs. 15.75 lakhs or any other amount by way of compensation for delay in the allotment of the original plot of land to the complainant. The order of allotment made under the directions of the High Court has fully been complied with and the High Court has not granted any compensation to the complainant.

FOR the above reasons the complaint was rightly dismissed by the State Commission and consequently the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.