AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 30.10.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 794/2013 in which order dated 08.07.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 92/2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for quashing the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the State Commission and passed by the District Forum vide order dated 08.07.2013.
While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission in FA/794/2013 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No. 92/2013.
Notice was issued to the Respondent on 07.03.2017. Parties filed Written Arguments on 07.11.2022 (Petitioner) and 11.04.2023 and 23.11.2023 (Respondent) respectively.
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -
Complainant’s father purchased one Khancha land measuring 1282.2 sq.ft. from Nagar Parishad Alwar on 22.10.1971 at the rate of Rs.2.05/- per sq.yd. and got possession on 17.12.1971. Complainant’s father expired on 12.02.1976. On 28.10.1983, the then Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Alwar sought permission for sale and registration of the said land from the District Collector, Alwar, as was required in terms of Circular dated 03.08.1983. On 23.08.1984, the Empowered Committee in the meeting headed by the District Collector granted approval for the sale of the said land admeasuring 1282.2 Sq.ft. in favour of Complainant’s father for his residential purpose. On 22.11.2011, Petitioner’s office wrote a letter to the State Government seeking guidance/direction from the Department of Self Governance, Government of Rajasthan for the issuance of sale letter. On 17..12.2012, the Rajasthan Govt. Deptt. of self Governance issued a notification whereby the limit for sale of Khancha land was increased from 100 sq.yds. to 150 sq.yds. and it was directed that any area above 100 sq.yds. could be sold/allotted at double the rate of the reserved price or the prevalent DLC rate, whichever is higher. This concession was to be single time one and applicable only in those cases in which the application has been presented before the end of the Shivir/Camp period and this concession/relaxation was available only after approval at the competent level till 31st March, 2013. On 26.10.2012, in response to the said letter of the Petitioner seeking guidance for the issuance of the Sale Letter, the State Government sent a reply whereby the Petitioner was informed about the increase in the limit for sale from 100 sq.yds. to 150 sq.yds. and the petitioner was directed to dispose the relevant matter during the period of Disposal Drive/Abhiyan. On 12.12.2012, the Empowered Committee as per the guidance of the State Government, in its meeting, disposed of the said matter by deciding to demand the balance amount from the Respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner issued two letters demanding the depositing of the due/balance amount as per the decision of the Empowered Committee within three days of receipt of the letters. It was made clear in the said letter that if the balance payment is not paid within the stipulated time, it shall be deemed that the Respondent is not interested in purchase the Khanch land. The Respondent failed to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated period. The Complainant /Respondent herein filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that the OP illegally demanded the differential price of the land as the sale consideration has been paid by the complainant to the OP.
Vide Order dated 08.07.2013, in the CC No. 92/2013, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the Complainant.
Aggrieved by the said Order dated 08.07.2013 of District Forum, Complainant/Respondent herein appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 30.10.2014 in FA No.794/2013 has allowed the Appeal and passed the following order:-
“Thus, this appeal is allowed and the Order of the Ld. District Forum, Alwar dated 08.07.2013 is set aside and the Opposite Party is directed to issue in two months Allotment Letter in the name of the Complainant or issue a lease and get it registered on the cost of the complainant. Also pay as compensation for the mental agony an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and litigation and appeal cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only).”
Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 30.10.2014 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the respondent had not challenged the Notification dated 17.10.2012, whereby the State Government has increased the limit for allotment of Khancha land from 100 sq.yds. to 150 sq.yds. Accordingly, Empowered Committee has discussed this matter in the meeting dated 12.12.2012 and in pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting the petitioner had issued the letter dated 20.12.2012. The Notification stands applicable as on date and the petitioner is under statutory/legal obligation to act as per the said Notification.
(ii) The State Commission has passed the impugned order contrary to the decision of the State Government of Rajasthan, which was formulated by the expert bodies of the State Government as a policy decision in the matter. The State Commission did not appreciate properly the contention of the petitioner herein and has passed the impugned order contrary to the law. The impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and the same is based on surmises and conjectures. The State Commission passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind as well as without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) The state Commission failed to appreciate that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act only provide additional remedy for redressal of grievances and in the present case no relief can be granted under the Act as the petitioner is only doing its statutory duty by enforcing/implementing the said order of the State Government which has not been challenged by the Respondent in his Appeal and or set aside by any competent Court or Authority and thus an executive arm of the State Government the petitioner cannot disregard the Government Notification/decision/order/Guideline.
(iv) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Petitioner has only demanded the differential amount as per the Government’s policy decision and has never refused to issue the Allotment letter and or Register the same in the name of the Respondent, if the differential amount was paid by the Respondent as per demand and reminder letters. The respondent had failed to make the payment, therefore, the question of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner does not arise at all and District Forum had rightly dismissed the complaint.
(v) The State Commission failed to appreciate that no relief can be granted to the respondent herein against the Government's policy decision, statutory rules as well as office memorandum and regulations under which the petitioner is statutorily/legally bound to work, unless and until the same are declared ultra vires or struck down by a Constitutional court/ Competent Authority. It is settled law that the Courts or Tribunals should not compel the Government to change its policy which involves financial burden and that the Court would not interfere with the policy decision of the Government. The impugned order of the State Commission may set a bad precedent which may put financial burden on the State Government. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the State Government is within its right to take a conscious policy decision and in absence of any malafide or arbitrariness in such decision of the Government, the State Commission had no jurisdiction to interfere. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the claim of the petitioner for the payment of the differential amount is governed by the conscious policy decision taken by the State Government and as per the notified policy decision. The State Commission also failed to appreciate that till existence of such notified policy decisions, the authorities under the State Government as that of the Petitioner, are bound to give effect to such policies.
Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
8.1 In addition to the averments under grounds (para 7) the petitioner contended that the original complaint of the Respondent herein was prima facie not maintainable and contrary to what the original complainant/Respondent herein prayed to the District Forum, there construes no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. The non-registration of the said Khancha land in the name of the complainant does not constitute deficiency in service, as the Petitioner has not provided any service within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The amount so demanded by the Petitioner forms part of the sale consideration and not a fee or charge levied for providing any kind of service. In support of its contention, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Estate Officer & Anr. Vs. Charanjit Kaur, reported in MANU/SC/0613/2021. It is further contended by the Petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the complainant /Respondent herein is in continuous possession of the said Khancha land from 17.12.1971 onwards and is using the same for residential purposes. Therefore, the Petitioner herein was not providing any service to that effect to the complainant/Respondent herein.
8.2 On the other hand, the Respondent/complainant contended that complainant’s father was allotted a Kancha Land situated at outside Delhi Darbaja, Alwar measuring 1282.2 sq.ft. from Alwar Nagar Parishad for the sale consideration amount @2.50 per sq.yds. and towards which Sh. Sampat Ram (deceased) deposited an amount of Rs.359.01 p with the Revisionist. After making the said payment to the satisfaction of the Petitioner, the complainant approached the Revisionist, for getting the registration/sale transfer document work done qua the said land in 1971, however the same was refused by the Revisionist. Sh. Sampat Ram expired on 12.02.1976 and Sh. Shivlal Bhagat S/o Late Sh. Sampat Ram (complainant) received a letter from Administration dated dated 24.01.2011 in the Succession Case No. 38/231/2000 vide its order dated 13.04.2004 issued by Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Alwar and accordingly Sh. Shivlal Bhagat (complainant/Respondent) got administrative and all rights of Sh. Sampat Ram (deceased) regarding the said land. The demand for completion of registration work was made by the complainant, however, the Petitioner failed to get the sale document/registration executed in favour of the complainant with no heed to interest and simultaneously demanded payment in view of applicability of Nagar Parishad Land Disposal Rule, 1974 dated 17.10.2012 at enhanced rate without any demand earlier, causing physical and mental harassment to the complainant as after 40 years (demand letter in 2012 since the entire consideration amount deposited in 1971) the Petitioner could not complete registration work rather raised new unreasonable demand from the complainant/Respondent. In view of the harassment caused to the complainant/Respondent, the complainant approached the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complainant. Hence, appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the Petitioner to issue the registration/sale document within two months. It is further contended that the entire allotment, possession and consideration and its payment/transactions were completed in 1971. No whisper about any rules/notifications as applicable to the said land in view of Rajasthan Nagar Palika Land Disposal Rule, 1974 was ever made in the communications held between the Petitioner and District Collector in letter bearing No. 5806 dated 27.10.1983 sent by Petitioner to District Magistrate and further in the meeting held by Land Disposal Committee of Kancha Land in Alwar dated 23.08.1984 before the District Collector, Alwar, prior to the issuance of demand letter bearing Othertax/2012/11265 dated 20.12.2012 by the Petitioner regarding enhanced rate @770/- in view of meeting held by Empowered Committee dated 12.12.2012. It is also contended that the citation “Estate Officer & Anr. Vs. Charanjit Kaur (supra) is not applicable in the said complaint of the complainant/Respondent as it is pertaining to leasehold and freehold rights while in the said matter of the complainant/Respondent, it is pertaining to registration of sale documents towards sale consideration amount which was entirely deposited in 1971 with due satisfaction of the Petitioner. Hence, non-registration /non-issueance of Allotment Letter/sale document of the said Kancha land in the name of Sh. Sampat Ram (deceased) and further to complainant/respondent by the Petitioner even after more than 50 years/half-a-century from the date of deposit of entire sale consideration amounts to ‘Deficiency of Service’ which is due to non-performance of the authorities within the time of services caused excessive physical and mental harassment to Sh. Sampat Ram (deceased) and to the Complainant/Respondent. Apart from all actions of taking money and giving the possession was completed by the Nagar Parishad, Alwar, wherein approval of the Empowered Committee was necessary which was also received post facto on 28.10.1983. The allocation, grant and possession of land against entire consideration amount deposited and its acknowledgement was made in 1971. The complainant/Respondent’s case nowhere lies within the said Rules (amended) of Rajasthan Nagar Sudhar Nyas (Urban Land Disposal) Rule, 1974 and Rajasthan Nagar Palika Urban Land Disposal Rule, 1974. As per letter of Administration dated 24.01.2011, the complainant is a legal heir of his father Sh. Sampat Ram (deceased), thus having paid the complete consideration amount, is entitled to get the issuance of allotment letter/registration/sale document of the said kancha land in his name from the Petitioner.
We have carefully gone through the orders of the District Forum, State Commission, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. In this case the allotment was issued as early as in 1971. The Petitioner, during the hearing on 08.08.2023, was directed to place on record copies of all the documents referred to in their Revision Petition, in particular, the letter dated 20.10.1971, vide which the said land was sold, letters dated 20.12.2012 and 27.12.2022, vide which additional amounts were demanded. However, despite repeated opportunities given, the Petitioner failed to place on record all the relevant documents and submitted on 12.03.2024 that they have not been able to obtain any documents despite their best efforts and hence, does not intend to file any documents and matter may be taken up on merits based on available records. Accordingly, the matter was heard on 12.03.2024 and judgment was reserved. In this case allotment having been issued on 20.10.1971 and possession having been given on 17.12.1971, the allottee/Respondent is to be covered by the rules, which were prevalent at that time. If the State Government/Petitioner Nagar Parishad changes any rules or makes a fresh policy, which adversely affects the old allottees like the Respondent in the present case, cannot be applied retrospectively. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner Nagar Parishad that they have demanded the differential amount as per the Government Policy decision, is not valid. The main thrust of the contention of the Petitioner Nagar Parishad is that they are implementing the Government Policy. The State Commission has duly considered various contentions of the parties. In this regard, extract of relevant paras of the order of the State Commission are reproduced below:-
“We heard the arguments of Complainant- Appellant. He says that the Nagar Parishad Land Disposal Rule, 1974 has become applicable after 22.10.1971 when his father bought the land and deposited the amount; therefore, the same is not applicable on him. We agree with his argument. Apart from that all actions, of taking the money and giving the possession, was completed by the Nagar Parishad, Alwar, approval of the Empowered Committee was necessary, which also was received post facto on 28.10.1983. Therefore, it cannot be said that the only 100 Sq. Yds could have been sold to the father of the Complainant, since the Rules of 1974 are not applicable on him. Apart from this the Opposite party is Estopped from its action after taking money and giving possession and it cannot punish the Complainant on the basis of its fault. The Complainant is as per the law legal heir of his father and has also received the Administration Letter from the District Court. Thus, having paid the complete consideration, he is entitled to get the issuance of Allotment Letter for the 142.6 Sq. Yds. Khancha land, issuance of lease and registration.”
In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the final order of the State Commission. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly the Revision Petition is dismissed.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.