APPEAL NO: 679/2006



Urban Improvement Trust,

Sriganganagar through Secretary.

Opposite party-appellant


Vs.


1. Dr.Virendra Kumar, r/o Shankar Colony,Sriganganagar.

Complainant-respondent


2. Administrator, Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahakari Sammittee, c/o Dy. Registrar, Sahakari Sammittees, Sriganganagar.

Opposite party-respondent



Date of Judgment 5.3.09


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethia-Member


Mr.Ajay Tantia counsel for the appellant

None present for the respondents


This appeal has been filed by the appellant UIT which was opposite party no.2 before the District Forum, Sriganganagar against order dated 3.3.06 passed by the District Forum, Sriganganagar in complaint no. 174/2003 by which the complaint of complainant respondent no.1 was allowed against the appellant in the manner that the appellant was directed to issue Patta in

2


favour of complainant respondent no.1 within two months and complaint against respondent no.2 which was opposite party no.1 before the District Forum stood rejected.


2. It arises in the following circumstances-


That the complainant respondent no.1 had filed a complaint against the appellant as well as respondent no.2 before the District Forum,Sriganganagar on 15.3.03 inter alia stating that he had purchased a plot from respondent no.2 ( the society ) which was mentioned in para no.2 of the complaint and since the Patta was not issued by respondent no.2, therefore a complaint bearing no. 561/97 was filed against respondent no.2 before the District Forum,Sriganganagar and the same was allowed by the District Forum,Sriganganagar on 2.3.98 and thereafter Patta was issued by rspondent no. 2 to the complainant respondent no.1. It was further stated in the complaint that for regularising that Patta the complainant respondent no.1 had approached the appellant UIT and a sum of Rs.9750/- for regularisation, Rs.2438/- as lease money and Rs. 2167/- as transfer money, thus in all Rs.14355/- were deposited by the complainant respondent no.1 with the office of the appellant on 16.3.01 but even then no Patta was issued by the appellant and thus a prayer was made by the complainant respondent no.1 that the plot in question be regularised by the appellant and Patta be issued to him.


A reply was filed by the appellant before the District Forum,Chittorgarh on 17.1.04 inter alia stating that if the plot was allotted to the complainant by respondent no.2, for

3


that the appellant had no concern and no doubt a sum of Rs.14355/- were taken by the appellant on 16.3.01 but that land could not be regularised by the appellant as that area was covering the road and since no assurance was given by the appellant for regularising that plot, therefore, complaint be dismissed.


A reply was also filed by respondent no.2 and their case was that the act of regularising the plot was to be done by the appellant and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.2 and the amount was also taken by the appellant and not by them and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed.


After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Sriganganagar through impugned order dated 3.3.06 had allowed the complaint of complainant respondent no.1 inter alia holding that since the appellant had taken a sum of Rs.14355/- from the complainant respondent no.1 on 16.3.01 for doing the job as mentioned in the receipt, therefore, it was the duty of the appellant to regularise the plot and issue Patta. Thereafter the District Forum had come to the conclusion that no deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.2 could be attributed and complaint was allowed against the appellant.


Aggrieved from the said order dated 3.3.06 passed by the District Forum,Sriganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.


3. In this appeal the main contention of the learned counsel for

4


the appellant is that no doubt the above mentioned amount was taken by the appellant but since later on when the land in question was measured, it was found under the area of the road and that could not be regularised, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and further on behalf of the appellant no letter was ever issued to the complainant respondent no.1 for depositing the amount and if the amount had been deposited by the complainant respondent no.1, for that no right had been created in favour of the complainant respondent no.1 by which appellant could be compelled to issue Patta. Thus, the findings recorded by the District Forum could not be sustained as they suffer from basic infirmity, illegality and perversity and the impugned order passed by the District Forum be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.


4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and gone through the entire materials available on record.


5. There is no dispute on the point that Patta was issued in favour of the complainant respondent no.1 by respondent no.2, the society and thereafter the complainant would have applied for regularisation of the plot to the office of the appellant and a sum of Rs.14355/- were charged.


6. On file there is a document dated 21.3.01 which clearly goes to show that the land in question had fallen in road area that is why the plot in question could not be regularised.


7. When this being the position, this Commission is of the view that no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant

5


could be attributed because of the following reasons-


(i) That if the road had come under way in regularising the plot, the appellant could not be held responsible as it was beyond its power.


(ii) That even in such type of matters where there is a prayer for regularisation of the land, such type of matter should not have been dealt by the District Forum and further since the amount in question was deposited by the complainant respondent no.1 with the office of the appellant, the complainant is entitled to get that amount alongwith interest.


8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed in the manner that that part of the impugned order dated 3.3.06 by which the appellant was directed to issue Patta in favour of the complainant respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside and it is further ordered that the appellant would pay a sum of Rs.14355/-which was deposited by the complainant respondent no.1 with the appellant, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 16.3.01 till the payment is made and further to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as costs to the complainant respondent.



Member President