Makkhan Singh vs C.G. HOUSING BOARD

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 25th September, 2002 in Complaint No. 334/2000 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''Distt. Forum'' for short), dismissing the appellant''s complaint.

THE facts not in dispute are that the respondent/Housing Board had developed a housing colony at Vaishali Nagar, Supela, Bhilai. THE complainant/appellant applied for allotment of a house in the said colony. In pursuance of his application, House No. MIG 74 was allotted to him by respondent No. 1. It is also not in dispute that the complainant deposited Rs. 25,768-32 ps. with the respondent/Housing Board towards the price of the said house. THE complainant was given possession of the said house on 31.3.1978 and an agreement was executed. It is also not in dispute that as mentioned in respondent''s letter dated 8.4.1977 the house allotted had a plot area of 4,605 sq. ft. The averments in the complaint stated in brief are that the plot of the said house was not rectangular and was of trapezium shape. It was also averred that the opposite party/respondent had intimated the complainant/appellant that he will have to take the remaining plot, adjoining the rectangular plot allotted to the complainant. The complainant signified his ascent to the above proposal of respondent. However, according to the complainant, despite his efforts, the respondent did not allot remaining portion of the plot. The complainant averred that the total area of the plot of trapezium shape was 6084.62 sq. ft. including the adjoining triangular. It was averred by the complainant that though he requested the respondent to execute the registered sale deed for the whole of the said plot but they have not done so despite repeated and persistent efforts of the complainant. Hence, the complainant prayed that the respondents be directed to execute the sale deed of house No. MIG 74, Vaishali Nagar, Supela, Bhilai allotted to him comprising plot admeasuring 6084.62 sq. ft. He also claimed that compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental torture be also awarded to him.

The respondents in their written version resisted the complaint. It was stated that as per the allotment order, the plot area was 4,605.6 sq. ft. The complainant was directed to pay the price of the house constructed on the said plot and on his depositing the amount of Rs. 25,678.32, an agreement dated 31.3.1978 was executed in his favour. The respondents have also averred that they were always ready to execute the sale deed as per the area of the plot shown in the agreement, but the sale deed could not be executed on account of complainant''s insistence for allotment of adjoining additional land. The respondents further averred that the complainant has already been given possession of house and plot admeasuring 4,605.6 sq. ft., as per agreement. It was also averred that on account of insistence as above by the complainant, the sale deed could not be executed.

THE District Forum, in the impugned order held that the complainant has paid the price for the plot area 6084.32 sq. ft. as has been asking for additional land of which the total area of 6084.32 for which no payment has been made. It was, therefore, averred by the respondents that they have not committed any deficiency in service. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard and the record was perused.

THE main question that arises for consideration is: as to whether the complainant/appellant could insist on the sale deed being executed for 6084.32 sq. ft. of land, or whether he was only entitled to land admeasuring 4605 sq. ft.? It may be noted that there is no dispute that was the respondent/Housing Board allotted H. No. MIG 74 to the complainant/appellant by letter dated 28.3.1975. It would appear from another letter of respondent dated 8.2.1978 that the cost of the plot of the said house MIG 74 at Vaishali Nagar was also calculated on the basis of plot area of 4605 sq. ft. and total amount of Rs. 25,768.32 was demanded from the complainant/appellant. It is also not in dispute that the above amount was deposited by the complainant and an agreement to that effect was also executed between the parties. The complainant claims that he was entitled to the additional plot as shown in the map submitted by the Asstt. Engineer in which the plot area has been shown to be 6084.32 sq. ft. The copy of said document purportedly shows the plot measurement of H. No. MIG 74. However, it is not clear as to under what authority, the said measurement was done by the Asstt. Engineer of the respondent. It also appears that there was some correspondence between the officials of the respondent/Board, by which extra land as shown in the said map prepared by the Asstt. Engineer was contemplated to be allotted to the appellant. However, there is no material on record to show that the extra plot shown in the map was actually allotted or there was any agreement between the parties in that regard. Therefore, the said intra departmental correspondence or consideration to allot the extra plot to the complainant/appellant would not amount to any vested right to the complainant/appellant. As noticed earlier, it appears that the complainant/appellant had only deposited an amount of Rs. 25,768.32 as per demand of the respondent/Housing Board which included the cost of the plot admeasuring to 4605 sq. ft. and cost of the building etc. There is nothing on record to show that any demand for extra amount was made from the complainant/appellant by the respondent/Board towards the price of the extra plot. Therefore, it appears that the complainant/appellant did not pay extra price for the additional plot. He cannot, therefore, claim any right, for the allotment or registration of the said plot, in his favour.

THE complainant/appellant had laid stress on the letter dated 3.3.1998 written by the complainant to the Dy. Commissioner of the respondent/Board and has tried to urge that the said letter goes to substantiate the appellant''s stand that the extra plot was agreed to be allotted to him. However, the perusal of the said letter dated 3.3.1998 only goes to show that there was some negotiation and talk between the parties regarding the allotment of additional land by the respondent to the appellant. However, it appears from the said letter itself that no agreement between the parties had been reached and, therefore, the appellant prayed that a final decision in the matter be taken by the respondent and the same be intimated to the complainant. Obviously, even till 3.3.1998, no final agreement between the parties was arrived at for the allotment of extra plot to the appellant as has been claimed by him.

IN view of above, since there was no concluded agreement between the parties, the appellant/complainant cannot insist on allotment of the said extra plot which matter entirely rests with the respondent/Board. It also appears that complainant/appellant all along has been insisting that the sale deed be executed and registered for the house, including the whole of the plot i.e., inclusive of extra plot and comprising a total area of 6082.6 sq. ft., which does not appear to be justified. The complainant/appellant is only entitled to get the house with the plot area of 4605 sq. ft. as would be clear from letter dated 8.2.1998 and other material on record. Learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant has placed reliance on the decision of this Commission in Satpal Rampal v. R.D.A., IV (2003) CPJ 738, in support of his contention. In that case, the complainant had prayed for the refund of the plot which was not allotted to him by the respondent/R.D.A. It was held that since the respondent had communicated its inability to allot the plot, the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him. However, factual matrix in the present case is entirely different. As noticed earlier, the complainant was allotted plot admeasuring 4605 sq. ft. and the respondent/Housing Board never refused to execute the sale deed of the house including the said area of the plot. As noticed earlier, the insistence of the complainant/appellant in the instant case is for the allotment of additional plot which was never agreed to by the respondent/Board. Hence, the complainant''s case is not supported by the above decision. However, the complainant is entitled to get executed the sale of deed of the house with the land admeasuring 4605 sq. ft. from the respondent/Housing Board, as per rules.

Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, dismissing the appellant''s complaint. There is no substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.