DEEPAK MUKHERJEE vs AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD

THIS is a complaint case filed for directing the opposite party to deliver possession of the plot and for compensation.

THE facts of the case as disclosed in the affidavit by the complainant are that the complainant applied for registration of a plot in the year 1982 and deposited an initial amount of Rs. 2,000/- as registration amount. THEreafter on the request of the opposite party, he further deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as additional registration amount. A certificate for having made this payment was issued on 28.5.1985, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1. Even after lapse of 10 years the opposite party has not allotted any plot in favour of the complainant. A copy of the letter dated 30.4.1992, which was received by the opposite party, is being filed as Annexure 2. On 24.7.1992 the complainant wrote another letter to the opposite party with a request to allot the plot. The complainant made several requests to the opposite party for allotment of a plot. Nothing was done till the filing of the complaint. The complainant has prayed for award of interest at the rate of 18% on the deposits already made alongwith Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental torture. It is further alleged that by allotment letter dated 30.6.1993 plot No. 25/63 in Indira Nagar was allotted to the complainant after a lapse of about 10 years. He was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,27,640/- which was deposited on 30.7.1993. Copies of these receipts have been filed as Annexures 4 and 5. The possession of the plot has not been handed over even after allotment of the plot despite making several requests. When the complainant went to the office of the opposite party, he was told that the possession shall be delivered only after registration of the sale deed. The complainant was given possession of the plot on 10.4.1994, a photo-copy of possession letter is enclosed as Annexure 7 to the affidavit. Before handing over possession, the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs. 13,627/- as lease rent, etc. which was deposited by the complainant on 29.7.1993. The lease agreement was signed and registration done on 30.3.1995.

The opposite party in his written statement has merely mentioned that the complaint is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as when the complaint was filed, the amount deposited was only Rs. 5,000/-. It has been further alleged that the jurisdiction of the State Commission starts from above Rs. 5 lacs while the valuation of the present case is only Rs. 5,000/-.

THE opposite party in his written statement has further alleged that the registration of the plot has been done on 8.2.1997. THE complaint is liable to be dismissed as infactuous. THE complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation or damages. It is not necessary to mention rest of the allegations. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties.

LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case as the valuation of the case when it was filed in the year 1992 was only Rs. 5,000/-. It may be recalled that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum before amendment in June, 1993 was upto Rs. 1,00,000/-. Beyond that upto Rs. 5,00,000/- the jurisdiction was that of the State Commission and thereafter the jurisdiction of the National Commission starts. A perusal of the complaint will go to show that by the time the complaint was filed only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party. No plot was allotted to him till then. Therefore, the amount which was deposited by the complainant was being Rs. 5,000/-, the jurisdiction of the District Forum should have been invoked by the complainant. The complainant should not have come to State Commission for redressal of the grievance of the dispute and the controversy fell within the jurisdiction of the District Forum only. The complainant could get his relief from the District Forum as the valuation lies within Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore the State Commission come to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. The complainant should file his complaint before the District Forum having jurisdiction to try the same. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be returned. Order The complaint is returned for presentation to proper Forum. However, there will be no order as to the cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint returned.