SUKHDEO P. SARODE & ORS. vs VIJAY S/O. ANANDRAO JOSHI

The complainant/respondent having become the member of the Abhiyanta Gruhnirman Sahakari Sanstha, Nagpur, a plot of land bearing no. 179 and measuring 162 sq. metres was allotted to him in a draw of lots held on 26.12.1992. Plot no. 181 was allotted to one Mr. H.B. Badwaik. The society had put as many as 181 plots in the draw of lots held by it. The lay out plan had not been got approved before the draw was conducted. Later on, Nagpur Improvement Trust sanctioned only 178 plots as a result of which, the society fell short of three plots. The respondent was not given either plot no. 179 which was allotted to him in the draw of lots nor any other plot in lieu of the aforesaid plot was made available to him. The amount of Rs.7,000/- each which the said complainant had deposited with the society, remained lying with the society and was not refunded to him. Being aggrieved on account of the failure of the society to make the plots available to him, he alongwith Mr. H.B. Badwaik who also had a similar grievance against the society, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the society primarily on the ground that since Nagpur Improvement Trust had sanctioned only 178 plots, it had not been possible for it to give plot no. 179 to respondent Mr. V.A. Joshi and plot no. 181 to Mr. H.B. Badwaik. The society however, offered to given possession of plot no. 157 to complainant no. 2 Mr. H.B. Badwaik.

The District Forum vide its order dated 21.10.2005, directed the society to deliver possession of plot no. 157 to complainant no. 2 Mr. H.B. Badwaik and held that no direction could be given for allotment to complainant no. 1 since only 178 plots had been sanctioned by Nagpur Improvement Trust. The District Forum directed refund of Rs. 7,000/- to complainant no. 1 alongwith interest.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant no. 1 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 05.04.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal and, noticing that no alternative plot was available with the society, directed it to pay compensation on the basis of the market price of the plot as per Government Ready Reckoner applicable on the date of filing of the complaint alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Compensation quantified at Rs.10,000/- was also awarded to complainant no. 1 alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioners including the society are before this Commission.

It is not in dispute that the complainant no. 1 Mr. Joshi was also a member of Abhiyanta Gruhnirman Sahakari Sanstha, Nagpur and he had paid the requisite amount of Rs.7,000/- to the said society. It is also not in dispute that the society had included as many as 181 plots of land in the draw of lots held on 26.12.1992. In my opinion, the society should first have got the lay out plan approved from Nagpur Improvement Trust before holding the draw of lots for allotment of the plots. Had that been done, only that many flats would have been included in the draw as were sanctioned by Nagpur Improvement Trust. Having included 181 plots in the draw without first getting the lay out plan approved from Nagpur Improvement Trust, the society must necessarily face the consequences of the mistake committed by it by holding a draw in respect of plots which had not even been sanctioned. Moreover, even though only 178 plots were sanctioned, the society did not bother even to refund the amount of Rs.7,000/- which the complainant had deposited with it. The society could not have taken the stand that it was for the complainant no. 1 to come and demand the aforesaid amount. It is quite possible that had the aforesaid amount had been returned to the complainant in the year 1992 or 1993, he would have acquired an alternative plot elsewhere and would have got the benefit of appreciation in respect of that plot. The society was certainly deficient in rendering services to complainant no. 1 by not making available to him the plot which came to be allotted to him in the draw of lots held on 26.12.1992, or an alternative plot.

The State Commission has awarded compensation based upon the market price of the plot as per Government Ready Reckoner, applicable on the date of filing of the complaint. The computation of compensation in the aforesaid manner cannot be said to be unfair or unreasonable. This is not the case of the petitioners that the actual market price of the plot as on 10.01.2005, when the complaint was filed was less than the price calculated as per the Government Ready Reckoner. Therefore, payment of compensation based upon Government price applicable on the date of filing of the complaint cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.