V.K.MEHTA vs SECRETARY, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, TODARMAL MARG, AJMER

COMPLAINT No. 705 of 1992 was filed by the Petitioner herein, before the District Forum, Ajmer, contending that after the sale of the plot to the Complainant by the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer, (for short referred to as the UIT), the area was not developed by the UIT, and it has permitted jhuggis to be developed, and that various amenities as contemplated by the brochure are not provided. The District Forum by its order dated 28.8.1993 dismissed the complaint.

HENCE , the Petitioner preferred Appeal No. 300 of 1994 before the State Commission. The State Commission by its order dated 28.8.1993 dismissed the appeal by observing that approach roads with side drains had already been constructed in the vicinity of the plot of the Petitioner. That fact was admitted, but the Petitioner insisted that the UIT should make over all development for better enjoyment of his plot. The State Commission observed that the UIT had done more for the benefit of the public at large than what could have been possible and recorded its appreciation for the UIT by stating that on the basis of the words given to the Court the development work commenced on 3.6.2003 and was completed on 2.8.2003. It was also noted that further development could not take place because of stay order granted by the civil court. Against that order the Complainant has preferred this Revision Petition. The Petitioner in his written arguments submitted that in the affidavit dated 2.2.2007 filed by the UIT it has accepted as under: (A). UIT, a (Statutory Body) has accepted the Site report as well as present status of the Scheme as prepared by the Local Commissioner in his Report dated 19.8.06. Further the Respondent has accepted that out of 90 plot only 8 houses have been built and in the remaining plots there is no construction as per scheme. (B). UIT has always been in charge of the scheme. All the cases pending before the various courts including Panchu Ram and this case is being fought by the Respondent only, the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, UIT, Ajmer. Hence, the contention regarding transfer of scheme to Municipal Council is baseless. (C). The approach road as per plan has not been developed by the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, UIT, Ajmer. The Scheme has taken shape of Katchi basti and slum as reported by Local Commissioner in his Report dated 19.8.06 and accepted as per report by UIT Deputy Planner. (D). The cases pending in various courts against The Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, UIT, Ajmer have not been fought with vigor. (E). The photographs attached with the Affidavit dated 26.3.07 of the Respondent do not show the photographs of segment of 90 plots. It pertains to other segment/portion of ASCR Scheme. The Respondent has very cleverly not taken the photographs of the segment of 90 plots. Only one photograph pertains to the segment in question. (F). The National Commission and the Supreme Court of India has in its various rulings have held that it is the duty of the Housing Board/Government Bodies to prevent unauthorized constructions in the colonies controlled by them. (G). It is the duty of the Statutory body to prevent all unauthorized construction in the Scheme Built by them and to remove the helplessness of a consumer which faces against even Government Body. (H). In public the UIT has given guarantee for development in a planned scheme free from all litigation, but the actual position is totally against their own commitment.

Submissions by U.I.T.

AS against this, in the affidavit filed on 2nd February, 2007 filed by the UIT it has been pointed out that the scheme has been transferred to the Municipal Council since August, 1998 and, hence, it is the responsibility of the Municipal Council to maintain the colony after the same was handed over to it. It has also been contended that: (i). The UIT has tried its best to remove unuathorised construction when the scheme was being implemented by the UIT. However, one Panchu Ram and various others approached the civil court and obtained stay due to which the UIT had to hold its hands. After the case was decided in favour of the UIT, those persons have preferred appeals. (ii). For removal of the encroachments it has been pointed out that now Municipal Council has to take action. (iii). The width of the road in front of the Petitioner"s house is 30 ft and there has been no misrepresentation of this fact. (iv). The Municipal Council under the Ajmer Urban Infrastructure Development Project was planning to lay down sewerage all over the city. (v). The report of the Local Commissioner seems to have been prepared at the behest of the Complainant, since no factual data has been provided as to how the value of the property has nosed-dived. Findings: From the record, it appears that the grievance of the complainant is mainly with regard to (i) non-construction of sewerage system; (ii) non-construction of roads as mentioned in the lay out plan; (iii) non-removal of unauthorized constriction; (iv) and, non-construction of buildings in the segment where Petitioner has constructed building.

FOR the sewerage system it has been pointed out that in the entire Ajmer City, there is open drainage and, therefore, the complainant cannot make any grievance for the same. In our view, this contention is justified and, therefore, the submission made by the Petitioner on this count cannot be accepted. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that for the entire city of Ajmer, construction of drainage system is likely to be commenced within few years. For the construction of roads, it has been pointed out that on three sides, roads are constructed, and, therefore, the complainant cannot have any grievance. Only with regard to fourth side, construction of road is not complete because some persons have obtained stay order from the Civil Court. In our view, once the Civil Court has granted stay order, the UIT cannot develop that road any further. However, the UIT is expected to move the Court for removal of the encroachment, if the construction is unauthorized.

THE Petitioner has also contended that he is entitled to compensation from the UIT as the other plots in the vicinity are not developed. In our view, this contention is without any substance, because the Petitioner has made construction over his plot; and there are roads on three sides. If other persons have not made any construction, that would not mean that the Petitioner is entitled to have any compensation from the UIT. Finally, the UIT cannot be held responsible for the development of jhuggis, as an injunction is obtained by the Jhuggi dwellers from the Civil Court. However, considering the facts of the case, it is directed that the UIT shall take appropriate action for removal of unauthorized constructions.

IN view of the above discussion, the matter is remitted to the State Commission for the limited purpose of verifying as to whether the stay order obtained by Panchu Ram and those who are alleged to be the unauthorized encroachers, is vacated or not. If the stay order is vacated, the State Commission may issue appropriate directions, on the basis of facts, for removal of the unauthorized constructions. This would solely depend upon the circumstances which may be brought on record. The rest of the grievances as stated above are of no substance. Further, we make it clear that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, no question of granting any compensation to the Petitioner/Complainant would arise. The Revision Petition is allowed partly for the limited purpose as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.