RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD v. BINDARAM
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD v. BINDARAM
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD
…Appellant
BINDARAM
…Respondent
Case No: REVISION PETITION NO. 3985 OF 2017
Date of Judgement: 06 December 2023
Judges:
DR. INDER JIT SINGH
PRESIDING MEMBER
For Appellant: MR. N K CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE
For Respondent: MS. REKHA PANWAR, MR. PRATEEK KUMAR JHA, ADVOCATES
Facts:
Typographical error caused confusion about actual plot size but they received correct amount as per pricing principles. Complainant encroached on public road contradicting scheme provisions and site plans. Execution of sale deed for this is impermissible. Cited case law that encroachment on public roads is not permissible under any circumstance. Complainant disqualified as a consumer under Consumer Protection Act due to encroachment on public road.
Case Laws Referred:
No case laws were referred in the order.
Download Court Copy https://dreamlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/task-3.pdf
Full Text of Judgment:
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 22.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.127/2014 in which order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara (here in after referredto as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 56/2013 was challenged, inter aliapraying to allow the revision Petition and set aside the order passed by State Commission.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (here in after also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (here in after also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA/127/2014 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was complainant before the District Forum in the CC/56/2013.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 06.11.2020 (Respondent/complainant) and 27.10.2022 (Petitioner/OP) respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-
6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 22.11.2013 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 22.09.2017 in FA No.127/2014 has dismissed the appeal and allowed the complaint.
7. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 22.09.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
ii. The direction from the District Forum to execute a sale deed for encroached land in favor of the complainant, upheld by the State Commission, promotes encroachment onpublic roads without authority. This action is deemed illegal and contrary to the law and facts of the case. Both fora failed to comprehend the open counter sale scheme for the allotment of LIG houses at Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar, Bhilwara. The cost of land was fixed based on specific principles, and the impugned orders, relying on false and baseless claims without reliable evidence are not legally sustainable. Both for a committed a serious error by not appreciating that the complainant purchased a LIG house under the scheme, and any discrepancies in the documentation were due totypographical human error. The OP board received the correct amount for the actual area, as per the established principles of costing under the scheme. Therefore, the impugned orders, contradicting the proven facts and evidence, should be set aside.
8. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
9. In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the fora below against the petitioner/complainant here in. Extract of relevant para of District Forum order is reproducedbelow:-
10. Extract of relevant para of State Commission is also reproduced below:-
“It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that a plot of 6.10X11.25 squaremeters was allotted to the complainant. The cost of this was 7.875 square meters.Therefore it is shown separately in the allotment letter. Therefore, this land is currently included in the original area of 68.626 square meters only. He also argues that under the same housing scheme, he has presented two allotment letters of Shri Rajkumar Aggarwal and Shri Chhai Lal Sharma, whereas the learned advocate for the respondent has supported the conclusion reached by the learned District Forum.
I have considered the arguments from both sides. If the argument of the Housing Board is to be accepted that all the houses in that scheme are of 60.75 square meters area, then this argument cannot be accepted because according to the allotment letter of Chhai Lal, the area of 7-H-2 is stated to be 60.75 square meters but according tothe allotment letter of Rajkumar Aggarwal ,the area of 7-H-42 is said to be 68.62square meters. Thus, the argument that all houses should be of 60.75 square meters cannot be accepted. It has not been disputed that the plot 7-H-1 is a corner plot andhas two areas mentioned in its allotment letter. The cost of land of 6.10X11.25 squaremeters has been marked as Rs 16,403/-. Below this, the cost of additional land has been mentioned as Rs 2678/- for 7.875 square meters. The argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted that the land allotted to the Appellant isincluded in the original area but because the cost of this additional land is different, it has been shown as separate. If such was the situation then it should have beenshown as additional cost instead of additional land. Similarly, a dues certificate from the Housing Board itself is available in which the residential engineer has mentioned that the total amount is 76.5 square meters and the lease amount has been received on this. Therefore, there is no need to interfere in the decision of the learned District Forum, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.”
11. We have perused the allotment letter dated 29.01.1994, relevant extract of which isreproduced below:-
(A) COST OF HOUSE
1. Cost of land (std. area 6.10 x 11.25 Sq. mtr @ Rs. 16403.00
(Actual area………..sq. mtr.)
2. Cost of extra land @ 7.875 sqm. Rs. 2678.00
3. Cost of construction (including all overheads) Rs. 49697.00
4. Extra charges for DC/SDC house @ 2 % on (3) Rs. 994.00
This clearly shows that the complainant was allotted a plot of which the standard area was6.10m x 11.25m i.e. 68.625 sq.mtr., for which he was charged Rs. 16,403/-. This being acorner plot, the extra land was 7.875 sq.mtr. (0.75m x 11.25m) for which an amount of Rs.2678/- has been charged. Thus the total area come to 76.595 sq.mtr.. However, the OP Boardcontends that extra area of 7.875 sq.mtr. i.e. the corner plot area is included in the 68.625sq.mtr. area and the standard area was 5.50m x 11.25m only and it was a typographical error in the allotment letter to mention it as 6.10m x 11.25m. OP Board also contends that all the houses in this area/colony have standard plot size of 5.50 x 11.25 only. Perusal of allotment letter and other documents show that these contentions of OP Board are not correct, hence not acceptable. The allotment letter clearly states that area of plot is 6.10m x 11.25m and extra land of 7.875 sq.mtr. has been charged in addition. Further, there are few more houses in the same area where standard plot size is not 5.50m x 11.25m e.g. House No. 7 H42 is6.10m x 11.25m i.e. 68.62 sq.mtr., 7H33 is 8.0m x 11.25m i.e. 90 sq.mtr., 7F33 is 7.70m x11.25m i.e. 86.62 sq.mt. and so on. Moreover, in the No Dues Certificate dated 04.03.2011also, the area of 7H1 i.e. plot of complainant in this case is clearly mentioned as 76.50sq.mtr.
12. Hence, at this stage the contention of OP Board that complainant has encroached upona public road extra area of 7.875 sq.mtr. is not acceptable. The complainant is entitled to totalarea of 76.595 sq.mtr. i.e. 68.625 sq.mtr. Standard area plus 7.875 sq.mtr. for extra area onaccount of this being a corner plot, for which he has been charged separately. Hence, he isentitled to get the conveyance deed registered in his favour for the total area of 76.595 sq.mtr.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8 September, 2022, held that:-
“13. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call forthe records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 14. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.’
15. In view of foregoing, we find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error, in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the RP is dismissed with additional litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid by the Petitioner herein to Respondent herein. Petitioner here in/OP board shall implement the order of the District Forum within 45 days from today.
16. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.