Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1000/2019

Rajasthan Housing Board - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mukesh Nandan Sharma S/o Shri Raghu Nadan Swaroop Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Tomer

22 Jan 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:1000/2019

 

Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Mukesh Nandan Sharma s/o Raghunandan Swaroop Sharma r/o House No. 69, Azad Nagar, New Daudpur colony, Distt. Alwar.

 

Date of Order 22.01.2021

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President

Hon'ble Mr.Ramphool Gurjar -Member

 

Mr.P.S.Tomar counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA, PRESIDENT ):

 

 

2

 

The present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment dated 9.7.2019 passed by the learned DCF Alwar in Complaint No. 94/2019 title Mukesh Nandan Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board whereby the learned DCF allowed the complaint and ordered to quash the No Due Certificate No. 4854 dated 17.3.2006 and directed to issue fresh No Dues Certificate in regard to House No. 2/372 NEB Extension Scheme, Alwar measuring 73.80 sq.mt. and it was also directed that appellants/ non-complainants shall also pay Rs. 5000/- as mental and physical agony to the complainant/respondent and Rs. 5000/- for legal expenses.

 

Brief facts arising for this appeal are that respondent/complainant preferred a complaint before the learned DCF Alwar wherein it was mentioned that on his application House No. 2/372 in LIG category was allotted to him in NEB Extension Scheme, Alwar by the appellants for which he has deposited the amount of entire instalments. The house was allotted vide allotment no. 3398 on 6.1.1996 and possession was handed over on 11.4.1996. Thereafter, after depositing the amount of entire installment he applied for No Due Certificate wherein appellants/non-complainants

3

 

mentioned the measurement of the land of house as 90 sq.mt. instead of 72 sq.mt. For correcting the aforesaid mistake he filed an application before the appellants on 27.8.2018. After receiving the aforesaid application for correction the appellants issued demand notice for allotment of additional land on 23.10.2018 and demanded Rs. 53,370/-. Measurement of additional land was mentioned in the aforesaid demand notice is 1.80 sq.mt. which was deposited by the respondent on 14.11.2018 and thereafter sale deed/lease deed was executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent complainant. Lastly it is also mentioned in the complaint that appellants charged cost of 90 sq. mt. land while they gave possession of 72 sq.mt. only and when he applied for No Due Certificate and executing sale deed/lease deed, at that time an additional demand was demanded by the appellants. Therefore, additional amount of Rs. 56,843/- may be ordered to return the complainant with interest and the land which was falling short from No Due Certificate i.e. 18 sq.mt. may be directed to allot and Rs.50,000/- was also claimed for mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- for legal expenses.

 

In reply non-complainants/appellants stated that in No

4

 

Due Certificate instead of 72 sq.mt. 90 sq.mt.was mentioned while the complainant was given possession of 72 sq.mt. The demand notice for Rs.55,370/- was issued for additional land measuring 1.80 sq.mt. which is reasonable one and lastly it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

 

Respondent complainant in support of his complaint submitted photostat copy of allotment letter dated 6.1.1996, statement of deposited amount dated 16.11.2018, No Due Certificate dated 17.3.2006, One time lease certificate dated 17.3.2006, payment receipt dated 14.11.2018, Conveyance Deed-Allottee dated 20.11.2018, Perpetual Lease dated 20.11.2018, two site plans and demand notice dated 23.10.2013.

 

After hearing the parties the learned DCF allowed the complaint in aforesaid terms against which this appel is preferred by the appellant.

 

Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent complainant but even after service no body appeared on behalf of the respondent complainant.

5

 

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Mr.Tomar submits that the complaint was filed for additional allotment of 18 sq.mt. strip land by the complainant stating that No Due Certificate was issued for 90 sq.mt. and instead of 90 sq.mt. he was allotted only 72 sq.mt. plot area. While charges was recovred for 90 sq.mt. without considering this fact the learned DCF quashed the additional demand notice. He further submits that respondent complainant has deposited the amount according to demand notice, therefore, he is estopped from challenging the demand notice. He submits that on measurement excess land was found in the house of respondent complinant therefore, demand notice was rightly issued. He submits that after depositing the amount the complaint is not maintainable and without considering all these facts the learned DCF wrongly allowed the complaint. Therefore, the impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Dinesh Kumar Bairathi Vs. Raj. Housing Board (Revision Petition No. 546/2006) decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 8.9.2010, Rajasthan Housing Board Vs.

6

 

Ramesh Chand Chaturvedi (Appeal No. 1191/2019) decided by Bench No. 1 of this Commission on 6.8.2020, Smt.Sudha Nagla Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board (First Appeal No. 805/2015) decided by this Commission on 1.3.2016 and Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Sapna Singh (First Appeal No. 41/1997 ) decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 14.8.2007.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and available record.

 

The learned DCF while deciding the complaint observed that “ifjoknh dks tks edku vkaoafVr gqvk Fkk] og 72 oxZehVj dk FkkA mlh dk mls dCtk fn;k x;k o mlh edku dh dher o yht jkf'k o vU; lkjs [kpsZa lfgr mlls 1996 esa C;kt lfgr fd'rsa dj lu~ 2006 esa ,d eq'r olwy fd;sA ifjoknh us vizkFkhZ dh ubZ ,d bap tehu ij Hkh dCtk ugha fn;k x;k gS] cfYd mlh edku o Hkwfe lhek esa dkcht gS tks mls vkoafVr gqvk rFkk ftldh lEiw.kZ dher r; le; olwy yh xbZ o dCtk i= tkjh djus o dCtk i= lkSaius ds 22 o"kZ ckn mlls bl 15 lsaVhehVj iV~Vh dh orZeku nj dk Hkh 2-25 xq.kk olwy djuk vizkFkhZ dk lsok nks"k gSA ;g vizkFkhZ ds bathfu;jksa dh vdeZ.;rk gS fd edku tc 12x6 ehVj uki dk cukuk Fkk] rks 12x6-15 dk D;ksa cuk;k x;kA vxj cuk Hkh fn;k rks ifjoknh dks dCtk lkSaius ds le; mldk eki dj okLrfod eki vuqlkj mlls jkf'k

7

 

olwyuh pkfg;s Fkh] tks ugha olwyhA vizkFkhZ }kjk vf/kd ls vf/kd ;g fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] fd tks 15 lsaVhehVj dh iV~Vh vf/kd ikbZ xbZ] mldh dher edku dh ewy dher dh nj ls vkSj olwy dj ldrs FksA

tgak rd vizkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ x.kuk dk iz'u gS ge mlls lger ugha gSA bldk dkj.k ;g gS fd ifjfLFkfr fHkUu gksrh ;fn ifjoknh }kjk vius edku ds vkxs vizkFkhZ dh [kkyh iM+h Hkwfe dks dCts esa ys fy;k gksrk ;k dyrip of land ds rkSj ij ml Hkwfe dh ekax djrk] rc vizkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ x.kuk mfpr gks ldrh FkhA ijUrq ;gak izkjaHk ls gh vizkFkhZ ds bthfu;jksa dh gh xyrh jgh gSA ifjoknh ds Hkkx ij fdlh Hkh rjg dh xyrh ;k pkykdh ugha jgh gSA ifjoknh dks dbZ xq.kk vf/kd ewY; ij tcju 15 lsaVhehVj dh iV~Vh dk ewY; nsus ds fy, ck/; ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA mlls mlh ewY; nj ij bldk ewY; olwyk tk ldrk gSA

eap dh jk; esa vizkFkhZ }kjk fu/kkZfjr edku ds dqy ewY; yht jkf'k o vU; enksa lfgr 2]64]842@&:i;s 72 oxZehVj ds Hkko ls izfr oxZ ehVj 3]679@&:i;s rFkk 1-80 oxZehVj dh dher 6]622@&:i;s curh gSA vf/kd ls vf/kd bl 6]622@&:i;s dqy ewY; ¼yht jkf'k lfgr½ ij 18 izfr'kr th ,l Vh dh jkf'k 1192@&:i;s olwys tk ldrs gSA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ ifjoknh ls 1-80 oxZ ehVj dh ewy dher dh nj ls 6622+1192+7814 ¼lkr gtkj vkB lkS pkSng :-½ gh olwyus ds vf/kdkjh gSA ifjoknh mlls vf/kd olwyh xbZ jkf'k 56]843&7814+48]029@&:i;s ¼vM+rkyhl gtkj mUurhl :-½ vizkFkhZ ls okil ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

vizkFkhZ ds tks uks M~;wt izek.k i= tkjh fd;k gS] mlesa 90 oxZ ehVj ds LFkku ij 73-80 oxZ ehVj {ks=Qy ds vuqlkj u;k uks M~;wt izek.k i= Hkh ifjoknh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA vizkFkhZ dk lsok nks"k lkfcr gSA”

8

 

Admittedly possession of the house was handed over to the complainant respondent on 11.4.196 by the appellants and first No Due Certificate was issued by the appellants on 17.3.2006 and Lease Mukti Certificate was also issued on 17.3.2006. It is also admitted position that constructed house was handed over to complainant respondent wherein boundary wall was also constructed by the appellants themselves and at the time of possession the measurement was done by the officials of appellants non-complainant. Thereafter in the year 2018 i.e. after 22 years of allotment and possession when complainant respondent asked for executing sale deed/lease deed the aforesaid demand notice was issued in aforesaid terms by the appellants without any application of respondent complainant for allotment of 1.8 sq.mt. additional land with penal provisions. It is alleged by the appellants that respondent is in possession of excess land measuring 1.8 sq.mt. Initial map which was issued at the time of allotment and possession by the appellants which is signed by the two responsible persons of the appellants wherein measurement of eastern wall is shown as six meters. Now at the time of executing sale deed/lease deed it is corrected 6.15 mt. Meaning thereby it was found 15 cm. More. When the

9

 

construction was completed by the appellants Housing Board itself and initial measurement was also done by the responsible officers of the appellant and accordingly it was found that total area of the house is 72 sq.mt. and respondent complainant is utilising the house from 22 years. Now what circumstances arises for remeasuring the house by the appellants has not been given. Once the house has already been measured and allotment letter has been issued and possession has already been handed over to the respondent way back in the year 1996 after constructing boundary wall by the appellants then there is no allegation that any encroachment was committed by the respondent beyond the constructed area. No question arises for demanding additional amount or claiming amount against the strip land with penal interest. Considering all these facts the learned DCF rightly appreciated the facts of the case and partly allowed the complaint. So far as the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are concerned their facts are different which does not apply in the present case.

 

Accordingly the appeal devoids merits which is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that according to appellant there is

 

10

 

against the erring officers and is also free to recover the amount from the erring officers if they want to do so.

 

(R.P.Gurjar) (Banwari Lal Sharma)

Member President

nm