AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Rohan Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Sohan Singh Kathaith (the complainant) has filed above revision petition from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, dated 01.12.2022, dismissing the appeal in default and the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tehri Garhwal, dated 27.05.2016, dismissing the complaint on merit.
The petitioner filed CC/01/2015 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tehri Garhwal for directing the opposite parties to allot a plot of 150 sq. mtrs. in New Tehri Town under Rehabilitation Scheme, 1986. In the complaint, the petitioner stated that he was a teacher at Vidya Mandir, Suman Chowk, Tehri and was residing on rent in the house of Shri Jagdamba Prasad Bhatt, in old Tehri City. Due to construction of Tehri dam, old Tehri city had to sub-merge in the water of the dam. Directorate of Rehabilitation, Tehri Dam Project, Tehri framed a Rehabilitation Policy for the displaced persons of old Tehri city, in the year 1986. The petitioner applied for allotment of a plot of 150 sq. mtr. at (proposed) New Tehri town in March, 1986 and deposited Rs.750/- as required. Despite the due application being made by the petitioner, no plot was allotted by the opposite parties to him.
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. and others (the respondents) filed its written reply and contested the matter. In the written reply, they stated that previously the project of Tehri dam was being handled by the Project Steering Committee, under Irrigation Department of Government of U.P., who announced a Rehabilitation Scheme in the year 1986. But none of the residents of old Tehri Town had cooperated with the scheme, therefore, that scheme was suspended on 20.09.1986. Executive Engineer gave a notice dated 20.10.1986, to general public, who had applied for allotment of the house/plot, for withdrawing their money. Again public notice in this respect was published in local newspapers on 03.01.1993, for withdrawing the money. Under the Rehabilitation Scheme, 1986, no resident of old Tehri town was displaced nor was anyone allotted plot/flat. After incorporation of Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd., Tehri dam project was handed over to it, who framed a new Rehabilitation Scheme in October, 1995. Government also framed another Rehabilitation Scheme in 1998. The petitioner was neither eligible nor applied under the new schemes therefore, he was not allotted any plot in New Tehri Town. The complaint has been filed with delay of 29 years and liable to be dismissed.
District Consumer Forum, by the impugned order, found that under Rehabilitation Scheme, the allottee was required to give an affidavit on the prescribed proforma to the effect that he was residing on rent in old Tehri town from last several years and earning his livelihood and did not have any other residence and source of livelihood. The required affidavit was to be signed by the landlord as a witness but the petitioner had not given any such affidavit. The teacher of Vidya Mandir, Suman Chawk used to be transferred frequently as such the petitioner could be considered as residing in old Tehri town for last several years. The petitioner was not eligible for allotment under the rehabilitation scheme. Therefore, he was not allotted any plot in new Tehri town and the complaint was filed after 29 years of promulgation of rehabilitation scheme. On these findings, the complaint was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in FA/134/2016 which was dismissed in default by the order dated 01.12.2022 hence, this revision has been filed.
We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.14979 of 2009 Director Rehabilitation Vs. Shakha Kathait (decided on 02.04.2013), which was in respect of the government servants posted in old Tehri town from last several years at the time of rehabilitation policy of 1986. Therefore, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgment of the Supreme Court.
According to the petitioner, he was employed in Vidya Mandir Suman Chowk, Tehri and was residing on rent in the house of Shri Jagdamba Prasad Bhatt, in old Tehri City. Even under old Rehabilitation Policy, one of the requirements for allotment of flat/plot in new Tehri town was that the person residing in old Tehri town for past several years had no other residence and affidavit in this respect had to be filed. But the petitioner did not file any such affidavit. The petitioner merely relied upon his application/deposit under the old rehabilitation scheme which was already suspended by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. The petitioner has not applied for allotment under the new rehabilitation scheme as new rehabilitation scheme was only for the persons who owned a house in old Tehri town. As such no relief can be granted.
Otherwise also, there is no explanation for 29 years delay in filing the complaint. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides two years limitation from the cause of action. Tehri dam was started and old Tehri town was fully sub-merged in water, long before filing of the complaint. Cause of action arose, when old Tehri town was got vacated and sub-merged under water. The petitioner has neither explained inordinate delay nor filed any application for condonation of delay. The complaint has been rightly dismissed. We do not find any merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed.