RAM SAROOP vs Chandigarh Housing Board

THE complainant has alleged that Plot No. 1215, Dhanas Colony, UT, Chandigarh was allotted to him by the Chandigarh Housing Board on hirepurchse basis vide allotment letter dated 8.1.1987 (Annexure C1). It was on 2.7.1990 that Dadoo Ram with the help of some other officials, dispossessed him. It was all in conclusion with some persons of unlawful nature. THE complainant also approached the Civil Court. In the beginning, there was an order of temporary injunction issued on 3.7.1990 but his application was thereafter dismissed on 20.9.1990. It has further been alleged that the allotment of the premises to Dadoo Ram was unlawful. Dattu Krishan Goray, the present allottee was also impleaded as one of the respondents subsequently. THE relief claimed briefly is that the subsequent allotment in favour of Dattu Krishan Goray, respondent No. 3 be declared illegal, the complainant be paid compensation/ damages in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs and other damages for unlawful possession of respondent No. 3.

INA reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it has been averred that the complainant was not a consumer and the value of the plot in question was Rs. 5,500/- as mentioned in the letter of allotment and this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain it. It has also been averred that the complainant instituted C.W.P. No. 10628 of 1991, Ram Saroop v. Chandigarh Housing Board and Others, but it was dismissed on 22.4.1992. Similarly, the suit of the plaintiff, which was pending in the Civil Court at Chandigarh, was also dismissed on 17.7.1992. It was further averred that the complainant had failed to occupy the allotted site within the stipulated period as provided under the scheme and it was thereafter that the site in question was allotted to Shri Dattu Krishan Goray. The Estate Officer, respondent No. 2, filed a separate reply wherein the plea is that the writ petition and the civil suit have been dismissed. It has further been averred that an appeal attempted by the complainant before the District Judge, Chandigarh, was also dismissed on 7.11.1990.

There was a separate reply filed by Dattu Krishan Goray, respondent No. 3, who was added during the proceedings and it has been averred that the price of the site in dispute was about Rs. 6,000/- and this Commission should not have been approached by the complainant. The other pleas were that the complainant was not a consumer and that the writ as well as the civil suit have already been dismissed. It has also been averred that the complaint is baseless and motivated and the complainant himself was a defaulter. He never entered into possession as required and the ration card allegedly possessed by him did not bear any date. Since the complainant was never residing in the premises, there was no occasion for carrying away any goods or belongings.

IN the second half of 1979, a scheme was introduced for housing and rehabilitation of economically weaker sections of society living in slum conditions in the labour colonies and other parts of Chandigarh. IN this regard, a notification was issued on 24.8.1979. It shall be useful to refer to para 27(2) of the scheme and it is reproduced as under : "27(2) Licence in respect of a site may also be cancelled if - (a) the licensee is offered a tenement and he fails to occupy the same within 15 days of such offer; (b) he contravenes the provisions of Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952 in putting up a temporary building; (c) he unauthorisedly occupies in the Union Territory of Chandigarh any land belonging to the Government other than that allotted under this scheme."

A perusal of Clause (a) referred to above shows that it was mandatory that the premises were occupied by the allottee within 15 days of an offer. According to the complainant, the allotment was made to him on 8.1.1987 (Annexure C1). There is nothing to show that the premises in question were occupied by the complainant within 15 days of the aforesaid offer.

ON our enquiry, the learned Counsel for the complainant did refer to photocopy of ration card of Ramsaroop, but when it was examined by us, no date of its issuance was found therein. The learned Counsel for the complainant also could not rebut that this photocopy did not bear any date. The original has not been produced here. Ramsaroop attempted Writ 10628/91 challenging allotment in favour of Dadoo Ram after cancellation of allotment made in his own favour, but this writ was dismissed on 22.4.1992 by a Division Bench. The learned Counsel for the complainant has told that there was a strike of lawyers in April, 1992 and because the lawyer concerned did not appear before the Division Bench, the writ was dismissed. There is nothing to show in the proceedings dated 22.4.1992 that the lawyers were on strike. A perusal of the order shows that though the lawyer of the complainant was not present, yet the pleas taken up by the complainant in the writ were considered and it had also come to the notice of the Hon''ble Judges that a civil suit was also pending in the Court of SJIC, Chandigarh. The application for temporary injunction was first dismissed by the SJIC on 20.9.1990 and the civil appeal was also disposed of in the light of the order contained in the writ. The civil suit was dismissed by Sub Judge, I Class on 17.7.1992 (A photocopy of the orders on page 157). At a fairly late stage of the proceedings an application was moved that Shri Ram Saroop, complainant was of unsound mind and he required a guardian. When this application came up for hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant made a statement on 20.2.97 which is reproduced as under : "Statement of Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. Ram Saroop, complainant is a person of sound mind and the application moved on 14.12.1994 for appointment of a guardian be dismissed as withdrawn. R.O. & A. C. Sd/- President/20.2.1997."

As a consequence of this request for withdrawing the application, it was allowed to be withdrawn. Even thereafter Shri Ram Saroop did not come forward for his cross-examination and he was kept away for the reasons best known to him. Smt. Usha Rani d/o Shri Ram Saroop complainant, aged 26 years appeared as a witness in support of the complaint and she told that her father was performing the job of Poojari in a temple at Chandigarh. When a specific question was put to her regarding delivery of possession she told that she did not remember the date of possession given to them and by which particular official. Thus the statement seen above could not fill the gap of the evidence of the complainant himself. Here the order of allotment was made on 8.1.1987 and the allottee was required to get into possession within 15 days, the present complaint instituted on 29.11.1992 was apparently barred by time.

THE price of the plot was only Rs. 5,500/- and in such a case, the complainant was not expected to institute the complaint directly before the Commission. THE plea of pecuniary jurisdiction also goes against the complainant. After considering all these facts and circumstances and especially the fact that the complainant has already approached the Civil Court as well as the High Court on the same issue, it is held that the complaint is not maintainable and it is hereby dismissed. Complaint dismissed.