C.G. GRIH NIRMAN MANDAL vs SANJAY KUMAR DHIMAN

The complainant/respondent was allotted Plot No. EWS- 1497 by the petitioner and the Lease Deed of the aforesaid plot was also executed and duly registered in his favour. The plot was allotted to him for a total consideration of Rs.13,163/-. The petitioner however, constructed an EW House on the aforesaid plot. When the complainant who was in the service of Indian Army came to know of the same, he approached the petitioner, which allotted another plot bearing Plot No. EWS-1320 to him. The area of the Plot No. EWS-1320 being larger than the area of Plot No. EWS-1497, he was asked to pay for the additional land at the rates applicable in the year 2015-16. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which admitted the allotment made to the complainant. It was stated in the written version filed by the petitioner that the complainant having failed to construct the house on Plot No. EWS-1497 within the time stipulated for this purpose, the aforesaid plot was utilized by the petitioner which later on allotted plot no. EWS-1320 to him. Since the area of the second plot allotted to the complainant was larger, he was asked to pay the price for the additional land, at the rates prevailing at the time the second plot was allotted.

The District Forum, vide its order dated 26.05.2016, directed the petitioner to charge for the additional area admeasuring 17.10 sq. meters at the rate prevailing in the year 2010 and pay compensation quantified at Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.10,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The first question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to utilize plot no. EWS-1320 for its own purpose, despite the said plot having been allotted to the complainant for construction and the lease deed also having been executed in his favour. Assuming that the complainant had committed breach of the terms of the lease by not constructing a house on the aforesaid plot within the time stipulated for this purpose, the petitioner could not have just dispossessed him from the said plot, by utilizing it for its own purpose. If there was a default on the part of the complainant by not raising construction within the stipulated period, an appropriate show cause notice ought to have been issued to him and only after issuing the said notice and giving an opportunity of hearing to him, the lease of the petitioner could have been cancelled. Even on cancellation of the lease, the petitioner could not have just resumed physical possession of the plot. It could have taken possession of the said plot from the complainant only by following the due process of law, which required it either to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Public Premises Act after cancelling the lease deed or to file a Civil Suit against the complainant for the possession of the said plot. The aforesaid course of action having not been followed, the usurption of the plot of the complainant by the petitioner was absolutely illegal and without any legal authority.

Having committed an illegality, by utilizing the plot of the complainant for its own purpose, the least the petitioner was expected to do was to allot a plot of equal size at the same rate at which the first plot was allotted to the complainant. If a plot of equal size was not available and therefore, a bigger plot had to be offered, the price of the additional land ought to have been demanded only at the rates prevailing at the time the initial allotment was made to the complainant. It has to be kept in mind that the large plot came to be offered to the complainant not on his request but on account of the plot having usurped his plot in an illegal manner and then having failed to offer an alternative plot of equal size to him. Therefore, the petitioner was absolutely unjustified in demanding the price of the additional land at the rates prevailing in the year 2015-16. Hence, the direction given to the petitioner to charge for the additional land at the rates prevailing in the year 2010 is fully justified.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in any case, the award of compensation was not justified when the District Forum had already directed payment of the additional land at the rate prevailing in the year 2010. Again, I find no merit in the contention. A perusal of the complaint shows that it was in the year 2014 that the complainant decided to build a house on the plot allotted to him. Had the first plot allotted to him not been usurped by the petitioner, he would have been able to raise construction at the cost prevailing in the year 2014. The cost of construction in last 2-3 years having substantially increased, the actual loss to the complainant in the form of higher cost of construction would be more than the amount awarded as compensation to him. Therefore, no ground for even reducing the compensation awarded to the complainant is made out.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.