PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs JASWINDER KAUR

THIS is an appeal filed by Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA) against judgment and order dated 23.2.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 72/2003 - ''Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Bhoriwal v. Punjab Urban Development Authority & Another''.

THE respondent/complainant, who put in appearance before us through Mr. R.G. Singh Saini, Advocate, had filed the complaint case alleging, inter alia that he applied for allotment of 12 Marla plot in Urban Area of Sector 76-80 of SAS Nagar, Mohali under category of SC/ST. THE respondent/complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 67,000/- vide application in the month of January, 2000. THE serial number of the applicant was 9140. THE complainant was successful in the draw of lot, which was held on 30.3.2001 and her name appeared at serial No. 3 in the waiting list of successful applicants under the said category. Later on, two applicants for allotment of plot under the said category and whose names appeared above the name of the complainant in the waiting list withdrew from the said scheme and they also got refund of the earnest money. Resultantly, the respondent/complainant became the senior most in the waiting list. However, another applicant Shri Avtar Singh who had been placed at Serial No. 26 in the list of successful applicants in the category of SC/ST also opted to come out of the said scheme. THE withdrawal of Shri Avtar Singh enabled the respondent/complainant to enter the list of successful applicants in SC/ST category and she moved from serial No. 1 of the waiting list to the list of successful applicants and thus became entitled for allotment of a 12 Marla residential plot in the said sector under the said scheme of SC/ST. It is alleged that the complainant visited the office of the appellant at Chandigarh as well as Mohali for getting allotment of a plot of 12 Marla but she was not offered any such plot. A legal notice was also served by the respondent/complainant on the appellants but still there was no response from them. The complainant filed the complaint alleging deficienty in service on the part of the appellants/O.Ps. and prayed for issuance of direction to the appellants to allot a 12 Marla plot in the Sector 76-80 of SAS Nagar, Mohali under SC/ST category and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

The appellant contested the complaint case and filed written statement alleging, inter alia, that the request from applicants shown at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 of SC/ST category was received on 23.5.2001 and 24.7.2001 respectively and the amounts were refunded to them. The name of the complainant came at Serial No. 1 at the SC/ST category waiting list in July 2001. Shri Avtar Singh aforesaid, it was alleged, had put two applications under SC/ST category for allotment of plot of the area of 400 sq. yards as well as 300 sq. yards and he was successful in both the plots. This fact was detected during the scrutiny of successful candidates and thereafter Shri Avtar Singh was asked to surrender one of the two allotted plots but received no response from Shri Avtar Singh. It was contended that in case the allottee Sri Avtar Singh failed to surrender one of the two plots allotted to him then both the plots, which have been allotted to Sri Avtar Singh would be cancelled. This matter was, however, under consideration of the O.Ps./appellants.

IT was not disputed that in case Sri Avtar Singh chose to surrender 300 sq. yards plot or his both plots are cancelled, then the complainant/respondent would become entitled for a plot in the category applied for. IT was contended that the complainant in the present case had no rightful claim of allotment and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/O.Ps. The appellants as well as respondent/complainant filed affidavits in evidence. Before the District Forum, the learned Counsel for PUDA made a statement that one allottee of 300 sq. yards plot had withdrawn his allotment and now the claim of respondent/complainant shall be considered for allotment of plot subject to fulfilling of other conditions of allotment. The District Forum placed reliance on this statement of PUDA''s learned Counsel and issued a direction to the appellant to complete the process of allotment of plot to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order and awarded costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.

THE appeal was filed by the appellant on the ground that the impugned order was arbitrary and illegal besides being contrary to law and beyond jurisdiction. Reference was made to several writ petitions wherein the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the dispossession of the petitioners. THE pockets of land qua which the dispossession had been stayed, it was alleged, were scattered at various points due to which all development activities of the sectors in question have come a stand still. It was not possible for the appellants to go ahead with future allocation/allotments to such applicants as the plots are not available for allotment even to those allottees whom letters of intent had already been issued. It was alleged that in case the Hon''ble High Court decided the acquisition proceedings in favour of the writ petitioners, the appellants may be constrained to refund earnest money with interest to those applicants whom the appellants will not be in a position to allot the plots due to non-availability of land. The learned Counsel for the appellants alleged that there had been a genuine communication gap between the dealing staff of the appellants and the Counsel who appeared before the District Forum inasmuch as the said position was wrongly understood to mean that the respondent was not being issued the letter of allocation due to litigation pending before the District Forum. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants PUDA, due to the genuine communication gap, made the statement, which was referred to in the impugned order. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and consequently, the complaint did not deserve to be allowed and costs of Rs. 1,000/- could not be awarded. It may be mentioned that the statement of the learned Counsel for PUDA and made before the District Forum on 23.2.2004 about the availability of a 300 sq. yards plot, which could be considered for allotment subject to fulfilling of other conditions of the allotment, was made, which is not disputed by the appellants. The appellants have, however, tried to explain that there was a communication gap between the concerned staff of the appellants and the learned Counsel for the appellants who appeared before the District Forum and made the statement. The matter regarding the communication gap was not before the District Forum. The learned Counsel for the appellants made a clear and categorical statement about the complainant being considered for allotment of a plot of 300 sq. yards in SC/ST category in the aforesaid area situated in Urban Area, Sector 68-70, SAS Nagar, Mohali, which led the District Forum to issue a direction for completing the process of allotment of plot to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. The matter of allotment of plot to the respondent/complainant is thus under consideration of the appellants who have to consider the claim of the complainant for allotment of the plot surrendered by one of the allottee as the respondent/complainant moved up from Serial No. 1 of the waiting list into the list of successful candidates for allotment of plot of 300 sq. yards.

SO far as the pendency of writ petitions is concerned, it is a matter still to be decided by the Hon''ble High Court and as and when the writ petitions are decided by the Hon''ble High Court, its consequential effects are to be examined by the appellants and follow-up actions to be taken. We find no error in the impugned judgment, which is passed on the statement of the learned Counsel of the appellant who appeared before the District Forum. The complainant had been running for redressal of her grievances as she learnt about withdrawal of allotment of a plot of 300 sq. yards in SC/ST category by Shri Avtar Singh, which fact is also not in dispute and this fact has not yet been decided by the appellants and in any case, any decision taken by the appellants regarding the allotment of two plots, one of 400 sq. yards and another of 300 sq. yards in SC/ST category to one and the same person under SC/ST category, has not been placed on record. Therefore, the District Forum was right in awarding costs of litigation to the respondent/complainant.

RESULTANTLY, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs of appeal. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.