RAJ KUMAR DALMIYA vs KRIPA SHANKAR

THIS is a revision against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kushinagar in Complaint Case No. 707/1999.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant filed a complaint for directing the opposite parties to sanction the map and also claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased a plot from Sitaram, s/o Algoo. He submitted an application for construction of a house along with copy of the sale deed to opposite party No. 2, Executive Engineer, Nagar Panchayat, Khaddha. He also deposited the required fee on 15.1.1997. The complainant has also got a suit filed through his uncle Sri Krishna Kumar Dalmiya bearing Suit No. 178/1997 and obtained an injunction so that no other person may construct a house over this property. The injunction order was vacated by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on which the appeal was filed before the District Judge which was dismissed on 5.7.1999. The appeal was also filed in the High Court which was also dismissed.

A sum of Rs. 25/- was also deposited for sanction of the map but opposite party No. 2 in collusion with opposite party No. 1 has not sanctioned the plan inspite of formalities completed. The complainant tried to construct the property but the opposite party directed its employees not to get the construction made. A letter was sent to the complainant that unless the map is sanctioned no construction should be made.

OPPOSITE parties in the written version have alleged that on 15.1.1997 an application was moved for sanction of the map. One Krishna Kumar Dalmiya also filed a map for construction of the house on the same line. A notice was issued to both the parties directing them to submit the papers to prove their respective ownership. Thereafter Krishna Kumar Dalmiya obtained a stay order from the Court and hence no proceeding was got done with respect to the sanction of the map. When the complainant informed the opposite party on 26.7.1999 that the stay order has been vacated, the Junior Engineer was directed to report and as per his report dated 5.8.1999 it was found that the map submitted was not according to the bye-laws. An information was sent to the complainant to get the maps corrected within 3 days. During this time the complainant made illegal construction and for which information was sent to the Station Officer of the Police Station to get the construction stayed. As the defects were not removed in the map and there were litigation between the parties, therefore, the map was not sanctioned. There is no deficiency in service. The map has been rejected by the opposite parties. The map can only be passed if the same is in accordance with the rules. The learned District Forum passed an impugned order dated 5.2.2000 that the opposite party No. 1 has rejected the plan but on the instructions of the Forum it is prepared to sanction the plan. Therefore, the previous order is being recalled and the opposite party No. 1 was directed to sanction the map within a period of 10 days.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party has come in revision and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/applicant has argued that the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the matter with regard to the sanctioning of the map cannot be tried before the District Forum. It is an admitted fact that a map was submitted by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2 for sanction of the plan which was not sanctioned in time because of the fact that it was not in accordance with the bye-laws. A notice was also given by the opposite party for correction of the map. All these findings were conducted by opposite party No. 2 in accordance with the statutes. The opposite party No. 1 was acting under the provisions of law. Hence it is not liable for any action and hence no complaint can be entertained against it by the District Forum. Whatever a body functions under the provisions of a particular statute in no suit against it can be filed before the District Forum. In the present case the rejection of the map was made under the statutory duties by the opposite party No. 2. The complainant should seek remedy about his grievances in a proper Court. The learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide the same. The order passed by the learned District Forum is without jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER

THE revision is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum dated 5.2.2000 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Revision allowed.