BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, JODHPUR (RAJASTHAN)


Appeal No. 06/2008 & 07/2008

06/2008

Smt. Saira Banu W/o Shri Munshi Khan, R/o Gandhi Colony, Jaisalmer.

..Appellant-Complainant

VS


1.

Commissioner, Nagar Palika Mandal, Jaisalmer
2.

Chairman, Nagar Palika Mandal, Jaisalmer

..Respondents-Non-applicants

07/2008


1.Commissioner, Nagar Palika Mandal, Jaisalmer

2.

Chairman, Nagar Palika Mandal, Jaisalmer

..Appellants-Non-applicants

VS


Smt. Saira Banu W/o Shri Munshi Khan, R/o Gandhi Colony, Jaisalmer.

..Respondent-Complainant


Before:

Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member

Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member


Present:

Mr. D.R. Choudhary, counsel for the Complainant

Mr. U.S. Gehlot, counsel for the Nagar Palika


ORDER Dated: 10.07.2009


PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER


These appeals have been filed against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaisalmer. As they arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this single order.


The Complainant Saira Banu filed a complaint before the learned District Forum, Jaisalmer stating therein that she purchased a plot on 4.4.2005 bearing No. 659 for a sum of Rs. 14,11,000/- in an auction conducted by the Nagar Palika Mandal (NPM), Jaisalmer. The bid was accepted and she deposited 1/4th amount on 4.4.2005 which was Rs. 3,52,750/-. The allegations of the Complainant is that

2


she approached the Non-applicants Office several times but the rest of the amount was not deposited saying that the file had been sent to the Collector and as soon as the file is received, information of the same shall be sent to the Complainant. The Complainant states that neither the auction has been cancelled nor the amount has been deposited nor the possession of the plot was given to her. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.


The Non-applicants NPM, Jaisalmer admitted this fact that the plot in question was auctioned and the highest bid was for Rs. 14,11,000/- which was given by the Complainant. It was further stated in reply that as the representative of the Collector was not present at the time of auction, the file was sent to the Collector for approval on 17.12.2005 but no sanction has been received from him. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the impugned order directing the Non-applicants to take decision within a month for allotment of the plot in question and in case allotment is not accepted or decision thereon is not taken within a month then the amount deposited by the Complainant may be returned to her with interest @ 10% per annum from 4.4.2005 till the date of payment and further to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.


We have heard both the counsels and gone through the file.


It is an admitted position that no decision has yet been taken by the Collector or by the Non-applicants so far. Surprisingly, the auction was held on 4.4.2005 and thereafter the file was sent to the Collector for confirmation but no decision either by the Collector or by the Director of Local Bodies (DLB) has been taken. The learned counsel for the Appellant has referred to rule 14 of Rajasthan Nagar Palika Urban Land Disposal Rules, 1974 which lays down the procedure to be adopted for sale of plots by public auction. The relevant provisions may be quotted as under:


“4(b)(ii) The auction proceedings will take place under the supervision of the Collector concerned or his representative and the Executive Officer of the Board.


4(b)(iii) The Executive Officer shall intimate the date, time and place of auction to the Collector atleast 15 days before.


4(b)(vi) Where ;the Collector or his representative is not present at the time of auction despite the said intimation, auction shall

3


be held under the supervision of the Chairman and the Executive Officer provided that in such case the confirmation of the auction proceedings shall be obtained from the Collector.


4(f)(i) Successful bidder shall be required to deposit 1/4th of the amount of his bid on the acceptance of the bid and the remaining 3/4th of the amount of the bid shall be deposited by him within one month of the acceptance of the bid and in case failure to deposit within next 30 days, interest @ 15% per annum shall be charged retrospectively from the date of acceptance of the bid.


4(g) The bid shall be subject to sanction of the Chairman of the

Municipality in whom are reserved the rights to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason thereto.”


[The auction proceedings shall be authenticated jointly by the Chairman/Administrator and the Executive Officer and also if present by the Collector or his representative.]


Bare reading of the above provisions will show that the auction should take place under the supervision of the Collector or his representative and the Executive Officer of the Board and in case Collector or his representative is not present, then auction can be held under the supervision of the Chairman and the Executive Officer. It is clear also that the bid shall be subject to sanction of the Chairman. He may accept or reject any bid. It further shows that on acceptance of the bid, successful bidder has to deposit 1/4th of the amount of bid and remaining 3/4th amount is to be deposited within a month. The auction proceedings have been placed on record which show that it was done in presence of the Chairman, Vikas Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Board, Commissioner of the Board and a leader of the opposition, Nagar Palika, Jaisalmer. So it is clear from the record that the auction was held before competent authorities and they also found amount of bid as fair and reasonable and therefore the Complainant was asked to deposit 1/4th of the amount. In our considered view to seek confirmation from the Collector or from the DLB remained a sheer formality. Surprisingly enough, neither the Collector nor DLB have taken any decision on this issue despite the fact that four years have passed after the auction was held. One is expected to take decision this way or that way but the matter can not be allowed hanging for indefinite period. Even Collector vide letter dated May, 2005 wanted to know from the Commissioner whether the Complainant Saira Banu had deposited the remaining 3/4th of the

4


amount or not? The entire record goes to show that there is a series of correspondence from the Nagar Palika Jaisalmer seeking guidance from the Collector as well as from the DLB but no decision appears to have been taken as yet. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Non-applicants by not receiving remaining 3/4th amount of the bid.


Consequently while allowing the appeal filed by the Complainant, we direct the Non-applicants to accept remaining amount from the Complainant and take further action for allotment and possession of the plot in question. The Complainant is directed to deposit this amount within a period of one month and thereafter the Non-applicants shall proceed to issue title deeds and to handover physical possession of the plot.

The Non-applicants shall also pay to the Complainant Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses as awarded by the learned District Forum. We find no force in the appeal filed by the Nagar Palika, Jaisalmer.


To the above extent, the impugned order is modified and the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.



Member Presiding Member



Hira Lal