Municipal Board, Dholpur Through Its Executive Officer Municipal Board Dholpur Vs. Naresh Gupta - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - sections 2(1)(g), 21(b); comparative citation: 2013 (1) cpj 681j.m. malik, presiding member 1. municipal corporation, dholpur invited applications for allotment of plots under prerana nagar residential scheme. the complainant, naresh gupta, was allotted plot no.116 in block d of residential scheme on 14.04.1994. he got the above said plot through lottery about which the complainant was informed on 16.05.1995. the complainant paid a sum of rs. 14,670/- on 24.05.2008. the op executed perpetual lease which was got registered on 03.07.2008 in favour of the complainant. 2. on 10.07.2009, the complainant was abruptly informed that the said plot was not available under the scheme and instead of that, he was allotted plot no.99 in block d. registered deed was cancelled. the petitioner filed a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, before the district forum. the district forum allowed the complaint and directed the op not to cancel the above said plot no. 116 allotted in favour of the complainant. it was also directed not to cancel the perpetual deed executed in favour of the complainant. the complainant was also granted rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation. aggrieved by that order, the appeal was filed before the state commission. the order passed by the state commission is sketchy and cryptic and does not lead us anywhere. 3. first of all, the counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that the state commission has not applied its mind, therefore, the case should be transferred back for a proper hearing before the state commission.       4. although we find that the order passed by the state commission is cryptic and lead us nowhere, yet, we have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. we find that there is no use of remanding the case back to the state commission. we asked the counsel for the petitioner to point out if there is any flaw either in the order of the district forum or in the order of the state commission. he could not respond. we have perused the record. it is crystal clear that the respondent has cancelled the plot without any rhyme or reason. no cogent and plausible reason was given as to why plot no.116 was being cancelled after it had been allotted to the complainant. in the written statement, the plea set up by the petitioner is this. œthat the meeting of committee of idsmt was called on 22.06.2009 under the chairmanship of district collector, dhaulpur and the decision of allotment of plot no.99 of that category in block d was taken in place of allotted plot before the delivery of title and possession to the complainant and therein the plots of 20 x 50 in block d in prerana nagar housing scheme were amended. the committee was informed by the answering person that only 115 plots are of 20 x 50 as per approved maps and due to mistake the plot no. d-116, d-119, d-122, d-123, d-124 were allotted while those were not in the scheme; hence the decision is taken to allot the plot of same area at another place with the consent of all and plot no. d-99 is allotted in the place of d-116 and in the same manner d-102 in place of d-199, d-103 in the place of d-122, d-104 in the place of d-123 and d-106 in the place of d-124?. 5. the above said explanation put forth by the respondent has neither head nor tail. the explanation given by the respondent is not satisfactory. there appears to be some ulterior motive in transferring the plot. even if the mistake had been committed by the petitioner, it must suffer the same. it cannot harass the public like this. the public is not to dance as per the whims and fancies of the officials of the respondent. this is also very surprising that this mistake came to light after the elapse of 15 years. this move does not appear to be bonafide. it envelops the intention of the respondent with an integument of suspicion. the revision petition is lame of strength and, therefore, the same is dismissed.