GNYANESHWARH vs NAMDEO LAXMANRAO PADOLE & ORS.

Sh. Namdeo Laxmanrao Padole , Ramchandra Madharao Lengure and Sudam Vithobaji Akkalwar, all the thee complainants purchased three plots respectively from Sh. Gnyaneshwar Jayramji Lohkar- OP through separate registered sale deeds. They also took possession of the same. However, the OP did not provide amenities namely electric line, drinking water, roads, drain etc. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.07.2010 gave the following directions. "1) The complaint of the applicants is partly allowed;

Within six months from the date of receipt of this order, the non-applicant is directed to make compliance of the terms and conditions of the order dated 14/03/1983, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Kelapur in Revenue Case No. NAP-5/34/82-83 Mouza-Saikhed and to make arrangement accordingly of pakka roads, construction of drains, arrangement of drinking water, electricity and to deposit fund required for the same with this Tribunal......;

The non-applicant is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to each of the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 towards mental harassment so also to pay each Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards compensation/damages and costs of complaint;

Copy of this order be sent to Sub-Divisional Officer, Kelapur. He is directed to get the terms and conditions of the non-agriculture order dated 14/03/1983 passed by him in Revenue Case No. NAP-5/34/82-83 followed by the non-applicant within six months and to issue such a certificate;

The non-applicant is directed to make compliance of about clause-3 of this order within 30 days from receipt of this order and to make compliance of clause-2 of this order within six months from receipt of this order;

Copies of this order be sent to all concerned for information".

The OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission and modified the order rendered by the District Forum and gave the following directions:- "i. The appeal is partly allowed.

i. The direction given under the impugned order to the appellant/O.P. to provide civil amenities of drinking water and electric line to the land in question, is set aside.

ii. The rest of the direction given under the impugned order to provide roads and drains to the land in question is maintained.

iii. Further direction given to the appellant to pay each of the respondent compensation of Rs.

2,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- is also maintained.

iv. No order as to costs in this appeal.

iv. Copy of this order be furnished to the parties free of cost".

Aggrieved by that order, the present Revision Petition has been filed. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. The OP has listed the following defenses. i) All the amenities have already been granted.

ii) The complaint is barred by limitation.

iii) The plot holders have already made construction of their respective houses.

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complaint filed by the complainants is barred by time. It is contended that the SDM vide order dated 14.03.1983 did not give any direction to the OP. The amenities namely electric pole, road and required electric line to the concerned lay out have been provided as already reported by the Commissioner appointed by the Forum. The order dated 14.03.1983 was produced before the State Commission. It was argued that the order simply mentioned that drain and open land are to be used by the Gram Panchayat. The State Commission also found that there was well, electric line available on the land.

All these arguments lack conviction. As a matter of fact the order passed by the SDM is crucial and determinative of this controversy. It has to be read holistically and not in vacua to the benefit of one and to the detriment of other. It reveals that the OP had received layout plan building plan duly approved by the Town Planning and Valuation Department. It further mentions that layout plan and building plans produced by the OP were in conformity with the provisions of schedule II & III appended to the Maharashatra Land Revenue (conversing of use of land and N.A.A.) Rules, 1968. The OP also mentioned adequate open marginal space at both the sides of the electric High Power Tension line pass in the land. The petitioner also agreed to observe the building regulations and prevention of Ribbon Development Rules as prescribed. There is also mention of building plan and site plan.

This is surprising to note that the OP has not produced site plan, building plan or sanction plan. The District Forum directed the OP to produce copy of order by which the terms and conditions of the non-agricultural use and copy of sanction map of the layout were approved. However, those documents of infinite importance did not see the light of the day. The mere fact that the roads, drains and open land for public use were transferred to the Gram Panchayat does not absolve the OP of his liability. Gram Panchayat is not supposed to construct the roads and drains. The petitioner cannot be permitted to lead the gullible consumers up the garden path. This has a continuous cause of action. Until or unless, the roads and drains are not constructed as per the sanction plan, the period of limitation will continue.

Consequently, we dismiss the Revision Petition in its entirety and in addition direct the petitioner to provide the above said facilities as ordered by the State Commission, within 90 days from the receipt of this order otherwise he will have to pay penalty of Rs.1000/- per day till the needful is done. The said penalty be paid to all the three complainants in equal portions.