AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Surendra Kumar against the order dated 28.07.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA Nos.349/2011 & 383/2011.
Brief facts of the case are that on 30.08.2001, the petitioner becomes a member of respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 allotted a plot to petitioner. On 30.08.2001, as per agreement, the respondent No.2 sends the letter for development charges to the members of respondent No.1 who were allotted plots. On 17.03.2005, letter is sent to the respondent No.1 by respondent No.2 to deposit the entire amount of development charges of plots and get registration in favour of the society members. On 22.10.2005, the respondent No.1 sends the letter to the respondent No.2 for the registration of the allotted plot of members with list of deposited amount in favour of the respondent No.2. On 21.01.2008, the petitioner sends the application for registration of allotted plot to him. On 18.09.2009, the petitioner again sends the application to the respondent No.1 for registration of the allotted plot to him. On 05.01.2010, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (in short 'the District Forum'). On 25.01.2011, the District Forum passed the order in favour of petitioner directing the respondents to allot a plot and to registry the same. Both the respondents filed separate appeals against the order passed by the District Forum in favour of the petitioner. The State Commission passed the common order in the Appeal Nos.349/2011 and 383 of 2011 and disposed of both the appeals by directing the respondent No.1 society to refund the amount paid by the complainant with 14% p.a. interest. The damages and cost awarded by the District Forum were also maintained.
Hence the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Commission, erred in interfering with the order passed by the District Forum and the same is against the material facts on record, and it is also contrary to the settled principles of law. The counsel further stated that the findings of the State Commission that an area of 14,872 square metres was placed at the disposal of Indore Development Authority (IDA) by the Society (respondent No.1) for development and according to the plan only 125 plots could be carved out of this area, and, the list was called from the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Society, who after verifying the record of the Society, sent the names of 125 members in accordance with their priority in booking the plots, is baseless and no documentary evidence has been produced before the State Commission or before the District Forum. In case they have submitted any document, then also both the respondents are bound to allot and register the plot in favour of the petitioner. It is wrong to say that respondents do not have excess land. In fact, there is surplus/excess land in between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and the matter is pending with the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 suppressed the real/material facts in regard to the surplus land. Thus, the order which had been passed by the District Forum, Indore, is proper and justified and according to the law. The findings of the District Forum, have been given with reasons and no interference was, therefore, required by the State Commission. The order of the State Commission is liable to be quashed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though the State Commission has ordered refund of the paid amount, however, the complainant is aggrieved as he wants plot to which he is entitled.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that all the plots have been given to the members on priority basis as per the list approved by the Joint Registrar and no land is available to be allotted to the complainant/petitioner. In these circumstances, the State Commission has ordered the refund of the amount paid by the complainant. It is not correct to say that there is some land available between the Cooperative Society and the Indore Development Authority and the complainant is mistaken in this regard. The complainant has not filed any proof to show that any excess land is available with the Society for allotment to the complainant.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 agreed with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. The background of the formation of the Society and availability of plot is given in the impugned order and the State Commission has observed the following in this regard:-
"2. Opposite party no.1-Veer Sawarkar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit was formed as a Co-operative Housing Society to provide plots to its members after acquiring the land. However, since the land was within the planning area of the Indore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "IDA") and in order that the planning is done in accordance with the general planning of the area, the IDA passed a resolution No.9 to take over the lands from the Housing Societies for development on charging for development and to give them the developed plots.
An area of 14872 sq. mtrs. was placed at the disposal of the IDA by the society- opposite party no.1 for development and according to the planning only 125 plots could be carved out from this area. A list was called from the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society who after verifying the record of the society, sent the names of 125 persons in accordance with their priority in booking the plots."
The State Commission has also given the reasons for ordering refund of deposited amount in the present matter. The State Commission has observed as under:-
"6. We are of the view that the absence of the land it would be an exercising in futility to direct the opposite parties to make available plot to the complainant-Shri S.K.Verma. The only alternative is to provide his money with interest. Since the money has been paid to the society, no direction is necessary against the IDA for refund of the amount and only the society need to be saddled with the same.
Accordingly, it is directed that the society shall calculate the total amount deposited by Shri S.K.Verma and refund the same to him with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of payment of the amount till the amount is paid to him. The society shall also pay the damages imposed by the District Forum as also the costs. The appeals are accordingly disposed of."
From the above it is clear that there is no land available for being allotted to the complainant. In this condition, no plot can be allotted to the complainant. Though the complainant has claimed that land is available between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, however the complainant has not filed any proof to show that there is any extra land available with the respondent No.1 for allotment to more members including the complainant. Respondent No.2 has also not admitted that any surplus land is available and is under consideration for giving it to respondent No.1. In these circumstances, the assertion of the complainant that extra land is available for allotment cannot be accepted.
When there is no land available for being allotted to the complainant, the only solution for redressal of grievance of the complainant seems to be the order for refund of the deposited amount along with appropriate interest. The State Commission has already ordered the refund of the deposited amount by the complainant along with a good interest @14% p.a. In my view, the grievance of the complainant has been reasonably redressed by the State Commission in the facts and circumstances of the case. In such situation, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and accordingly the revision petition No.3914 of 2012 is dismissed with no order as to cost.