STATE OF HARYANA vs OM PARKASH

THE appellant -opposite parties have filed the present appeal against the order dated 19.6.2003 passed by District Forum, Hisar, whereby while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent -complainant, the appellants were directed to pay Rs.

,000 ALONG with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposite till payment. It was further directed that they shall pay compensation amount of Rs. 2 lac to the complainant as additional cost of the plot in question. The compliance of the order was to be done within two months from the date of the order. 2. In order to focus the controversy involved in the present appeal, the facts as can be gathered from the record have to be noticed in detail. A Plot No. 925/23 measuring 322 square yards located at Hisar was sold in open auction on 19.12.1971 to Shri Rameshwar s/o Bhagwan Singh, resident of Hisar for a sum of Rs. 1,400. The purchaser deposited the entire price of the plot and the sale was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner on 31.1.1972. A sale deed was also executed and issued to the auction purchaser on 24.4.1972. Again a plot measuring 200 square yards remaining part of the disputed plot bearing property No. 925/23 was sold in open auction on 22.1.1979 in favour of Tirath Singh, father of the complainant being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The said auction was also confirmed by the authority on 15.2.1979. After the realization of the entire sale price, warrant of possession was issued on 7.6.1982 in favour of Tirath Singh relating to the said plot. The Field Kanungo (Mahal) as per report dated 14.12.1983 stated that the plot No. 925/23 min had already been sold to one Smt. Santosh Kumari d/o Hari Om, who had already constructed a Pacca House on the said plot. Taking notice of this mistake, a suo motu reference was made by the Tehsildar (Sales) on 7.6.1988 to the Settlement Commissioner, Haryana for setting aside of the second auction of the said plot in favour of Tirath Singh, which was made inadvertently. The said reference was returned with the objections and after removing the objections, it was again filed. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana decided the reference vide order dated 6.6.1994 and the Tehsildar (Sales) was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,000 to the legal heirs of Tirath Singh as Tirath Singh had expired on 9.3.1983. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana was not challenged by the legal heirs of the deceased - Tirath Singh. As no alternative plot was allotted to the legal heirs of Tirath Singh despite many available in the vicinity where the plot sold to Tirath Singh was located, the complainant being the son of Tirath Singh invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Hisar with the averments that the mistake was committed by the opposite parties in allotting the wrong number of the plot to his father at the time of auction. While the value of the property as on date has increased to four lacs, therefore, he prayed that opposite parties be directed to deliver the vacant possession of the residential plot bearing No. 925/23 measuring 200 square yards located at Hisar or in the alternative he be allotted another residential plot in the same vicinity and deliver the possession of the same and in case a plot cannot be allotted, he be paid compensation of Rs. 4 lacs on account of actual price of the plot in question ALONG with interest @ 24% per annum. The appellants contested the complaint. The factual position about the allotment of the plot in question to the father of the complainant and its subsequent cancellation as noticed earlier, was not disputed. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 6.6.1994 was justified. Under the circumstances of the case, the appellant pleaded that above said order has attained finality and the same cannot be challenged before the District Forum. It was further averred that the land dispute being an evacuee property, jurisdiction of the District Forum was barred under -Sections 36 and 46 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and for that reason the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum as per order dated 19.6.2003 accepted the complaint and issued the directions as noticed in the earlier part of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants -opposite parties.

WE have heard the learned AAG, Haryana representing the appellants as well as respondent in person at length. At the out -set it has to be noticed that there is a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal. Taking into consideration the substantial question involved in the present appeal, we deem it necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

IT is apparent from the record that the plea raised by the appellant for want of jurisdiction of the District Forum to try the complaint was rejected by the District Forum primarily on the ground that District Forum is not a Civil Court or a Revenue Court and in view of specific provisions contained in Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) and for that reason it has jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Reliance was placed in support of the view taken on the case, Consumer & Citizens Forum v. Karnataka Power Corporation, 1994 (1) CPR 130; Ram Nath v. Improvement Trust, Bathinda, 1994 (1) CPR 357; Kalawati and Others v. M/s. United Vaish Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC)=2002 (1) CON.LT 101 (NC). On merits, it was held that as the request made by the complainant for the allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the old plot sold to his father in auction was kept pending and delayed on one pretext or the other, therefore, there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and gave the directions as noticed earlier.

BEFORE us, the above findings of the District Forum have been assailed mainly on the ground that though in terms of Section 3 of the Act, 1986 remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the remedy available in other laws, but at the same time, the District Forum was duty bound to take into account that the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana has attained finality as the complainant had challenged the same and for the reason the complainant had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was further urged by the AAG that it is a case where mistake committed in auctioning the plot is apparent on record because the property could not be re -auctioned as it had already been sold to Smt. Santosh Kumari, who has even constructed residential house on the plot, at the time of auction of the plot to Tirath Singh. Further, according to him, the mistake committed was rightly corrected by the appellants when it was detected and the allotment of the plot in question was cancelled. Under the given circumstances, not only sale price has been ordered to be returned but interest has also been ordered to be paid and as such there was no justification for awarding escalating cost of Rs. two lacs because the matter remained pending for decision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana. We find considerable merit in the stand taken from the side of the appellant. It is not a case where due to mala fide action of the appellant, ownership of the plot has been denied to the complainant. In this case, one has to notice the provisions of Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1954) which confer powers upon the Managing Officer to confirm or cancel the release of property apart from the Act. Section 27 of the Act, 1954 gives finality to the order passed by the Competent Authority. It has been provided therein that sale or otherwise expressly provided in this case every order made by any officer or authority under this Act including the Managing Corporation shall be final and shall not be part of any Court by way of an appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Section 36 barred jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit in the manner laid down in this section. No doubt, as laid down in Section 3 of the Act, 1986 that provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, and on the basis of these provisions, judgments referred to in the order by the District Forum, have taken notice while deciding the controversy raised by the parties in those cases. But the primarily question which was required to be examined, whether it was a fit case where the District Forum should have entertained the present complaint and to adjudicate the rights of the parties knowing fully well that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had allotted plot to Tirath Singh in ignorance of the fact that this very plot has been allotted to Smt. Santosh Kumari, who has even constructed the house over the plot. They have merely rectified the mistake committed and cancelled the allotment. The sole ground on which the jurisdiction of the District Forum was invoked was that alternative plots were available in the same vicinity where the plot had been allotted to the father of the complainant. The burden to establish this fact was upon the complainant which he failed to do so. Even no definite finding has been recorded by the District Forum that alternative plots were available in the same vicinity and the appellants have actually denied to allot the same to the complainant. In view of the above stated position, the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 19.6.2003 and while accepting the appeal, we dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.