AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeal executions are directed against the order of the State Commission dated 14.6.2019 whereby the State Commission directed as under:-
"Under above circumstances, in under mentioned five execution applications, filed under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as an interim measure, it is ordered that the amount due and payable to the decree holders be treated as arrears of land revenue and accordingly, Tehsildar, Panchkula is directed to attach House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula, if it .is ownership of Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal. The attachment be effected in terms of provisions of Section 72 of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (As applicable to Haryana) to recover arrears of land revenue.
1
EA/376/2017
Rajesh Kumar Nagpal
Vs
BCL Homes Ltd.
2
EA/377/2017
Vikrant Mahajan
Vs
BCL Homes Ltd.
3
EA/378/2017
Nitin Sood
Vs
BCL Homes Ltd.
4
EA/379/2017
Col. T.S.Bajwa
Vs
BCL Homes Ltd.
5
EA/380/2017
Dev Bala Salwan
Vs
BCL Homes Ltd.
The above said provisions be applied strictly and property be attached and taken into possession as per above said provision. Itinerary of the articles available in the house be prepared."
The consumer complaints were decided by the State Commission on 7.2.2017. It is an admitted position that the order passed by the State Commission remains uncomplied till today though about two and a half years from the said order have already expired. The State commission has directed attachment of the property of the Managing Director of the company in terms of Section 72 of Punjab Land Revenue Act. Though in terms of Section 25(3) of the C.P. Act, the State Commission was required only to issue a Recovery Certificate to the concerned Collector requiring him to recover the amount payable to the consumers as arrears of land revenue and thereafter it was for the Collector to execute the Recovery Certificate, considering that the order passed by the State Commission directs attachment only in terms of the Section 72 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, the said order does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, when admittedly the order passed in the consumer complaints still remains uncomplied.
The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant may be given some time to consider giving an undertaking to comply with the order passed by the State Commission. If the appellant is ready to give such an undertaking, he will be at liberty to make an appropriate application to the State Commission alongwith his undertaking and it will be for the State Commission to then consider the application and pass an appropriate order on it.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the property which the State Commission has directed to be attached under the provision of Section 72 of Punjab Land Revenue Act had already mortgaged with IIFL Housing even before institution of the consumer complaint. If this is so, it is for IIFL to object to the said attachment and in fact according to the learned counsel for the appellants, IIFL has already filed such objections. Therefore, the said issue need not be considered in the present case. The Appeal Executions stand disposed of.