Rajagopal vs COMMISSIONER

THIS appeal, by the complainant, is directed against the order dated 7-12-1991, passed by the District Forum, Gulbarga, in Complaint No. C-110/91 dismissing the complaint. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: 1. The complainant had applied for a residential site under the project of land acquisition and development scheme with the opposite party-the then City Municipal Council, Gulbarga and had deposited full cost of the plot in a sum of Rs. 800/-. The opposite party even allotted a plot to the complainant, as per Ex. P5, but failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant. So the complainant filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to deliver and hand-over the possession of the said plot to the complainant and also claiming compensation.

THE opposite party filed its version and averred and admitted the fact that the complainant had applied for an allotment of a site and had made a sum of Rs. 800/- towards costs of the said site and a site bearing No. 172(G) type was also allotted to the complainant as per Ex. P-5; but did not deliver the possession of the site because in the meanwhile the persons interested in the land had initiated proceedings before the Land Tribunal. THE opposite party further averred that in the allotment letter-Ex. P-5 itself, it was shown that the possessionwould be given after the proceedings before the Court were concluded. THE relevant condition in the notice-Ex. P-5, reads as under: "However the allotment and possession to be given etc. of the plot in question is also subject to the decisions and orders of Courts of law."

THE opposite party further averred that the Land Tribunal granted the said lands to the Tenants. That was challenged by the opposite party before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the High Court set aside the said order of grant and remitted the case to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal and the said matter was still pending before the Land Tribunal. So it was not in a position to deliver the possession of the plot allotted to the complainant. The opposite party on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed.

During enquiry, the District Forum, marked the documents filed by the complainant, as Exs. P-l to P-12, heard the parties and on consideration of the material on record held that the complainant failed to show that the plot, in question, was free from litigation and so it was not possible to give any direction to the opposite party to hand over the possession of the plot in question.

WE have called for the records and received. WE have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records. It is not disputed that the plot in question allotted to the complainant by the opposite party is still under litigation and the said litigation is pending for enquiry and decision before the Land Tribunal. Ex. P-5 is the allotment of site notice given by the opposite party to the complainant. The notice itself showed that the allotment and the possession of the said plot to be given to the complainant would be subject to decision and orders of the Courts of law. The view of this fact, it is clear that the allotment itself was made subject to the clearance of the litigation pending. It is evident, as referred above, the litigation is still pending before the Land Tribunal. In view of this fact, the finding recorded by the District Forum, does not suffer from any infirmity. There are no grounds to interfere in the said finding recorded by the District Forum. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.