RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. vs GOYAL ENTERPRISES

-THIS appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Industrial Investment and Development Corpn. Ltd. against the order of the District Forum, Sriganganagar dated 12.1.1994 directing the appellants to transfer the plot in question in favour of the complainant within one month and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/-.

COMPLAINANT''s case before the District Forum was that he wanted to install a mill for expelling oil and therefore he had got himself registered with District Industries Centre, Sriganganagar. It was alleged that on 4.12.90 the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 61,000/- with the opposite parties-appellants as price of the plot measuring 2000 sq. mts. near railway line in Sadul Shahar. The opposite parties have said to the complainant that this plot will be allotted to him. Opposite parties sent a letter on 5.12.90 to the complainant requiring him to obtain no objection certificate from the railway authorities against the allotment of the plot. Accordingly the complainant submitted the No Objection Certificate from the Railway Authorities on 25.1.91. However, on 23.1.91 a letter was received from the opposite parties that the plot was not in the industrial area and therefore it was not possible to make the allotment. It is said that the opposite parties sent a cheque of Rs. 61,000/- to the complainant for refunding the amount deposited by him. But the complainant returned the cheque. The complainant prayed in the complaint that the opposite parties may be directed to allot to him a plot of land measuring 2000 sq.mts. near the railway line, which was in the industrial area and to issue possession letter. He also claimed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony, Rs. 50,000/- as economic loss and Rs. 4,000/- as travelling expenses. Upon reference being made, the opposite parties had filed their version wherein they pleaded that the complainant had on his own accord made an application for allotment of the above plot. It was informed to the complainant that the said plot did not belong to the opposite parties. Thereupon the complainant made and application on 4.12.90 wherein he mentioned that in case any dispute was found relating to the plot, he will take back the amount deposited by him. On 9.1.91 it was informed by the Railway Authorities that the plot in question belongs to the Railway. Accordingly the complainant was informed on 23.1.91 that this plot did not belong to the opposite parties and therefore it was not possible to make the allotment. The complainant was told that he can take refund of the amount deposited by him. Thereafter the complainant produced a report of Tehsildar, Sadul Shahar that the plot came within industrial area and the Tehsildar has no objection. It was stated that the complainant in collusion with the Railway Authorities submitted a report of the Assistant Engineer II, Northern Railway, Hanumangarh that the plot did not belong to Railway. The opposite parties further pleaded that they do not know to whom the plot belongs and therefore it was not possible to make the allotment of the plot to the complainant. The amount deposited by him was sent to the complainant on 25.4.91 by a cheque, which was returned by the complainant.

The District Forum has held that from the documents on record it appears that the Railway Authorities had denied that this plot belonged to them. The Tehsildar has also reported that in the revenue record, this plot was entered as Gair Mumkin Abadi. From this the District Forum inferred that the plot did not belong to anyone and when it could be transferred to the opposite parties and when opposite parties had not allotted this plot to the complainant despite deposit of the entire amount by him, there was deficiency in service. The District Forum therefore directed the appellants to transfer plot measuring 2000 sq. mts. to the complainant within one month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the evidence of the parties. The RIICO had been established for the industrial development in the State. It inter-alia allots plots in industrial area to enterpreneurs. It is pertinent to be noted that in the complaint, the complainant did not mention the plot number in industrial area for which he had made application for allotment. That area of land of the RIICO which is either vested in it by the State Government or is acquired for the purpose of the Corporation for developing industrial area could only be allotable. The complainant has not produced the original application which he made to the opposite parties. However there is another application dated 4.12.90 made by the complainant to the Resident Engineer of the Corporation. In this application the complainant stated that he had applied for allotment of land in Industrial Area at Sadulshahar. It has further mentioned that the plot proposed is just in front of plot No. 25A adjoining to the Railway boundary. The size of the plot is 160 x 115 feet approximately. It was further mentioned by the complainant that the said plot was in the drawing marked under the Railway boundary, but in reality it was out of Railway boundary. It is crystal clear from this application of the complainant that in the drawing of the RIICO, the plot for which the complainant had made an application was shown as Railway boundary and not as part of the plot in industrial area. It was the complainant himself who emphasized in his application that in reality it was out of Railway boundary and even undertook the responsibility for any kind of loss to Corporation and further assured that if there was found any dispute, he will take refund of the security and earnest money if any. From this application of the complainant itself, it is more than clear that the complainant on his own accord wanted to fasten some plot of land, when in the drawing of the RIICO, this plot was not shown in industrial area but was shown in the Railway boundary. As a matter of fact it was the complainant who wanted to force the RIICO to allot a plot of land which was not in industrial area and on the basis of the representation made by him in his application dated 4.12.90, he deposited the amount of Rs. 61,000/- with the RIICO. The RIICO had neither invited any application for allotment of this plot from prescribed applicants and had not otherwise notified this area as industrial area. The Railway Authorities of Northern Railway had informed the Area Officer, RIICO by letter dated 9.1.91 that the area marked as ''A'' measuring 155 x 160 ft. at Hanumangarh and at Sadul Shahar near crossing was Railway land. Upon receipt of this letter, the RIICO intimated to the complainant on 23.1.91 that the plot of land is not in industrial area and, therefore, it was not possible to allot the land to the complainant. There was a complainant who wanted to get this plot by unduly fastening it as industrial area. He, therefore, made an application to Tehsildar, Sadul Shahar. Although the Patwari had reported that this plot of land was entered into Gair Mumkin Abadi, but here was the Tehsildar who, without any evidence and contrary to the report of the Patwari, reported that the land came within the industrial area. The complainant also obtained a certificate from A.E.N., Northern Railway which was contrary to the earlier letter of the Northern Railway dated 9.1.91. The opposite parties having found that this plot of land did not belong to them, sent back amount of Rs. 61,000/- deposited by the complainant by a cheque which was refused.

WE are more than satisfied that this plot of land did not blong to RIICO. The RIICO had never advertised it for allotment of land. It was the complainant who wanted to get allotted to him this plot by RIICO, despite she fact that it was not earmarked as industrial area. The learned Counsel for the complainant during the course of argument showed us a photocopy of the leter addressed by the Dy. Town Planner, Bikaner to the Additional Collector & Secretary, Mandi Development Committee, Hanumangarh on 9.5.94. In this letter the Dy. Town Planner had written that according to the report of the Tehsildar and Assistant Engineer, this plot was of the State and was part of the land of industrial area transferred to Mandi Development Committee. He recommended that this plot of land maybe treated as part of the industrial area as plot No. 25 B. It further appears that a revised site plan including this plot in industrial area was also sent by the Dy. Town Planner. This letter shown to us brings the cat out of the bag and makes the matter more clear.

WE, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, Sriganganagar dated 12.1.94 and dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant. The complainant will pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the appellants. Appeal allowed.