Order no.2   Dated 07.02.2023

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

The complainant Mr. Anirudh Jalan, the Director of Prestige Properties by filing the complaint application stated that he purchased agricultural land from opposite party nos. 1 to 3 by virtue of three registrar Deeds of Sale dated 18.01.2018 and 19.01.2018 in the name of his company to avoid the ceiling limit as mentioned in Land Reformation Act. Opposite party no. 4 executed the Deed of Conveyance as constituted Attorney of opposite party no.1 and opposite party no. 5 was the broker who facilitated the sale of the agricultural land. It is the further case of the complainant that after purchase of the land, one Sadreulla Mallick and 22 others filed Title Suit no. 385 of 2018 in Howrah Court and the Hon’ble Court had been pleased to pass an order to maintain status quo  in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opposite parties but they refused to pay any heed to his problem due to which the complainant suffered huge loss. Hence this case.

On perusal of the Xerox copies of the Deeds of Conveyance, it appears that the name of the purchaser is ‘M/s Prestige Properties Pvt. Ltd.’, represented by its Director Sri Brij Kumar Nagar. The said M/s Prestige Properties Pvt. Ltd. is not the complainant in this case. The complainant Mr. Anirudh Jalan, Director of Prestige Properties in paragraph 6 and 7 of the complaint application disclosed that the complainant bought the land in the name of the company as an individual he cannot possess large chunk of size 93 decimal. The complainant bought the property in the name of his family company.

So, it is crystal clear, the complainant Mr. Anirudh Jalan claims that he himself purchased the land in the name of his family company to avoid ceiling  limit as mentioned in Land Reforms Act.

It is needless to reiterate that all three deeds of conveyance do not support the contention of the complainant. In all three deeds of conveyance M/s Prestige Properties Pvt. Ltd. was represented by its Director Sri Brij Kumar Nagar. So, the claim of complainant that he himself only purchased the land appears to be untrue.

That apart, it is apparent on the face of the complaint that the cause of action has arisen in the year 2018 when Title Suit no. 385 if 2018 has been filed by one Sadreulla Mallick and 22 others claiming title over the agricultural land in question but the instant case has been filed on 19.01.2023. So, the case is barred by limitation.

Having discussion made above, we are of the view that the complaint application has no merit to be admitted and also barred by limitation in terms of sub clause (1) of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed.