Ludhiana, March 20
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to pay Rs 30,300 and Rs 91,145 respectively to Mr Bhupinder Lal Aggarwal who is the legal heir and son of late Mr Kasturi Lal Aggarwal who had deposited the amounts as sale consideration of a plot allotted by the respondent. The forum has further directed the Trust to pay interest on the said amounts at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment, along with Rs 1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant.
According to the complaint, Late Mr Kasturi Lal Aggarwal had purchased 1337 square yards of land falling within the boundary of the Model Town Extension Part-II scheme of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. The representative of the complainant, Mr S.D. Nagpal stated before the forum that the said land was acquired by the Trust and as such Mr K.L. Aggarwal was a displaced person.
Mr Nagpal disclosed that Mr Aggarwal had applied for purchase of a plot in the said scheme of the respondent on September 6, 1982. He further disclosed that the applicant was considered as a local displaced person and he was allowed to deposit Rs 500 as earnest money. After that Mr Aggarwal was allotted the plot no. 25-B of 300 square yard at the rate of Rs 400 per square yard in the 475 acre scheme on December 20, 1990, he added.
Mr Nagpal stated that Mr Aggarwal had to deposit 25 per cent of the total value of the plot (Rs 1,21,000) and he deposited Rs 30,300 on December 21, 1990, alongwith Rs 100 for completion of the agreement of sale. After that, he was allowed to complete the form D agreement for sale and the same was completed and signed by the chairman, he further stated.
Mr Nagpal said that on January 31, 1991, the applicant deposited Rs 91,145 and Rs 100 for completion of the building plan. He said that but after completing the formalities and despite repeated visits to the Trust office, the applicant had not been able to get the possession of the allotted plot.
Mr Nagpal said that Mr Aggarwal wrote letters to concerned authorities for delivering the possession of the plot including the Secretary, Local Self Government and Punjab; the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, but to no avail. He said that the allotted plot in question was carved out in the village shamlat and later on allotted to a school which was the primary reason for the possession of the plot not being given.
Mr Nagpal said that the applicant had also requested the Trust to allot the alternative plot of the same size at the same price, but despite his request no alternative plot had been allotted. He disclosed that the applicant died, but he was not allotted the plot despite completing all formalities. It was alleged that there was clear deficiency in services and not giving possession amounted to unfair trade practice. It was demanded that the respondent should be directed to pay Rs 1.21 lakh the amount deposited by the applicant and to pay Rs 1,00,000 as deficiency in services to Mr Bhupinder Lal Aggarwal the legal heir and son of the applicant. It was also demanded that Rs 2 lakh should also be paid on account of escalation of costs of construction, alongwith Rs 10,000 as cost of litigation.
The Trust pleaded that the allotment of the plot was cancelled as per the directions of the Department of Local Body of the state government. The respondent stated that a letter regarding the cancellation was written to the applicant and the same was received.
The respondent maintained, “the complainant remained silent for 10 years and as such, he should be estopped from filing the present complaint, order of cancellation become final.” The respondent explained, “As per Punjab Town Improvement Act 1952 amended in 1983, the applicant was not entitled for the allotment of the plot.” It clarified, “As per the rules, those persons are not entitled for the allotment whose acquired land is less than half acre.
”He stated that the land acquired was less than half a acre, as such, the applicant was not entitled for allotment.”
The Trust prayed that the allotment was cancelled as per rules and there was no deficiency in services as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The forum observed that it was an admitted fact that the applicant had been allotted a plot of 300 square yard in 475 acre scheme of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and he had deposited Rs 30,300 and Rs 91,145 for the same respectively. The forum further observed that in this case the respondent could not be directed to allot an alternative plot, since cancellation order had become final, but as per the order the amount deposited was to be refunded to the complainant.
He stated that the Trust had not refunded the amount to the complainant. The forum held that the amount deposited should be refunded alongwith interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.