VICE CHAIRMAN, LUCKNOW VIKAS PRADHIKARAN vs PRABHAT KUMAR JHA

THIS is an appeal against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow. The complaint was filed by Prabhat Kumar Jha (now respondent No. 1 herein) against the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority (for short the LDA) and Housing Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh Respondent No. 2 herein). As appears from the translated copy of the Order (original order has riot been produced) the following reliefs were granted to the Complainants: (a) Complainant should receive the plot in question (which is 9.8 square metres less in area on the spot). (b) L.D.A. is fully responsible to complete that deficiency in area in the plot in question of the Complainant which is being given 9.8 square metre less in area on the spot. For this purpose L.D.A. should make available one plot of 9.8 square meters area for one shop in any developed business locality of Gomati Nagar Scheme to the Complainant at the latest by 31.1.1992. For this LDA will not take any amount from the Complainant and on the registration of this 9.8 square metres area plot whatever amount which will have to be spent by the Complainant that will be compensated by L.D.A to the Complainant within one month by L.D.A. If L.D.A. does not make available this 9.8 square meters area plot to the Complainant till 31.1.92 then from 1.2.1992 till the date of making available the said plot LDA will have to pay additional amount at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month (or any part of the month) to the Complainant.

THE facts as gathered from the record are that on 16th November, 1987, L.D.A. allotted plot No. 226 to the Complainant in Vishal Khand-IV in Gomati Nagar Scheme. The Complainant deposited Rs. 1,87,000/- for the plot. Lease Deed in favour of the Complainant was registered on 22nd September, 1989. At the time of registration of the Lease Deed the area in which the plot was situated had not been developed and he was assured by the official of the L.D.A. that within a period of one year or 1-VI years it would be developed. The Complainant visited the site on 14th April, 1991 and found that on the adjacent plots houses had been constructed either fully or only to the extent of boundary wall. The Complainant measured its plot in accordance with the lay out plan and found that on the front side the width of the plot was reduced by more than two 2 fts. On 15.4.1991 the Complainant informed LDA about this fact and requested that the corners of the adjacent plots be corrected so that he might get the actual area in accordance with the lay out plan. On 20th April, 1991 the Additional Secretary of L.D.A. called the owners of the concerned plots and on being measured the width of the front site of the plot of the Complainant was found 11.70 meters instead of 12.30 meters. The width of the plot on the back side was found to be correct. The area of the adjoining plots was found to be correct but their corners were found to be incorrect. According to the Complainant while determining the corners of the adjoining plots the LDA committed a mistake. He requested the LDA that the corners of the adjoining plots be got corrected and he should be given full area. The Complainant filed a complaint alleging that the LDA has not taken appropriate action and therefore, they were guilty of acting in an irresponsible and arbitrary manner. He prayed that physical possession over the actual area of land i.e. 288 square metres should be got delivered to him. The complaint was contested by LDA who averred that the deficiency in the measurement of the Complainant''s plot cannot be attributed to LDA as it was fault on the part of the owners of the adjoining plots who constructed their boundary walls on wrong measurement.

SUBMISSIONS of the LDA did not find favour with the State Commission which passed the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved against that order LDA has come before us in appeal. It may be mentioned here that the appeal has been filed beyond the period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. The Appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. Considering the facts mentioned in the application as well as taking into consideration that the present dispute cannot be said to be a ''consumer dispute'' we condone the delay.

AFTER going through the records and hearing the parties we are of opinion that the grievance put forward by the Complainant cannot be said to be a consumer dispute. The plot of the Complainant has been encroached upon by the owners of the adjoining plot holders on the front side. We have not been able to understand how L.D.A. can be said to be responsible for this encroachment or can be held guilty of any deficiency in rendering of service. There is no evidence on the file to show that the demarcation at the time of actual construction was given by the L.D.A. to the owners of the adjacement plots. If the owners of adjacement plot made any mistake while measuring their plots on the front side, the LDA cannot be held responsible. The Complainant ought to have been vigilant that nobody encorach upon his plot. The proper remedy is by way of a civil suit in getting the encroachment removed from his plot. In the light of the above discussions we accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned order. It would not be out of place to mention here that the relief granted by the State Commission about the alternative plot was not even prayed for by the Complainant. In the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs.