Post covers GMADA CONSUMER COMPLAINT STATE COMMISSION PUNJAB regarding plots in ECO City where ‘R’ category plots were for residents of Punjab only.
CHETNA SRIVASTAVA VS GMADA
This post talks about filed this complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that he filed the complaint before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh and complaint was allowed by the 2nd Additional Bench on 7.4.2014 vide which the complainant was directed to submit fresh documents with Ops and Ops were directed to decide the application afresh after considering all the documents within a period of two months.
Also Read- CONSUMER COMPLAINT GMADA State Commission Punjab
COMPLAINANT:
Ms. Chetna Srivastava D/o Late Sh. B.N. Srivastava, aged about 22 years, R/o H. No. 3908/1, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS:
1. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, P.U.D.A. Bhawan, Sector 62, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.2. Chief Administrator, GMADA, P.U.D.A. Bhawan, Sector 62, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
CORUM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.
Also Read- Consumer Complaint GMADA Archives
FACTS:
In the month of September 2011, the Opposite parties (hereby, Ops) floated a scheme for allotting plots under the name and style of ECO City, Phase 1 to the general public and also to the reserved categories as specified by the respondents/Ops in their application-cum-booking form. As per their offer, they offered 10 plots to the families of riot victims/terrorist victim, out of 200 plots. The price of the plot was fixed as Rs. 34 lacs and earnest money to the tune of Rs. 3.4 lacs. The complainant applied for 200 sq. yards plot for residential purposes. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 2.12.2011 that she has been allotted a plot in Eco City Draw, Category R in Block No. G, Street S-6 and plot No. 24 in the draw held on 28.11.2011. Complainant supplied all the documents along with her letter dated 20.12.2011 and letter dated 15.3.2012. She also deposited Rs. 6,80,000/- towards allotment money. In the month of May, 2012, the complainant received a letter dated 22.5.2012 from the office of the Assistant Estate Officer, GMADA, SAS Nagar vide which she was directed to appear before the office of Additional Chief Administrator along with original documents on 29.5.2012. Complainant appeared before the concerned authority and submitted the documents i.e. letter from Employer of her late father and other documents. However, to the utter shock and astonishment, the complainant received a letter dated 23.7.2012 issued by Estate Officer, GMADA, SAS Nagar and it was intimated to the complainant that the Discrepancy Committee has decided to give the benefit of reservation to the residents of Punjab only and the applicant being not resident of Punjab and in view of the decision of the Discrepancy Committee, the Estate Officer, GMADA cancelled the ear marked plot allotted to the complainant and the amount deposited by the applicant i.e. Rs. 3,40,000/- was ordered to be refunded after deduction of Rs. 6,800/-. Since the scheme was opened for residents of Chandigarh as well as Punjab and had deposited the earnest money of Rs. 3,40,000/- and she was successful in the draw of lots and Ops cannot decide it with retrospective effect to give the findings that the scheme is applicable only to the residents of Punjab.
Also Read- Gmada Do Need Completion Certificate Rules State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab
Ops passed the order after relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, titled as “Yash Pal Manket Vs. State of Punjab” and “Fauja Siddiqui Shahid Vs. State of Punjab & Others.” wherein it was observed that the general category candidates can be of Punjab and Chandigarh but if the applicant wishes to take the benefit of reservation, the reservation has to be as per the norms of the Government of Punjab. However, Ops failed to appreciate the facts mentioned in the judgments. The Ops also did not pass the order with regard to a sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- deposited on 15.3.2012. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, complaint was filed before this Commission seeking direction against the Ops.
Also Read- Consumer Complaint GMADA in State Consumer Commission
ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
The counsel for the opposite parties raised the objections that the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain and try the complaint is barred under Section 174 of Punjab Regional & Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 and his remedy was to file an appeal before the Competent Authority. The complainant had earlier brought the complaint based on the same facts, which was decided by this Commission vide its order dated 7.4.2014. After furnishing the fresh documents, the Ops considered the application and passed the order dated 6.2.2015. The complainant is therefore, estopped to file the present complaint by its act and conduct and that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.
In fact the allotment to the family of the riot victim/terrorist victims under Clause/code ‘R’ was only to the residents of the Punjab. It was denied that reservation is for the residents of Chandigarh also. The complainant also failed to show to be even resident of Chandigarh for the last 5 years on the date of opening the scheme. Therefore, the plot allotted to the complainant was cancelled vide order dated 23.7.2012. Filing of the complaint and its decision is a matter of record. As per the directions given by the State Commission on submission of fresh documents by the complainant, fresh order was passed by the State Commission on 6.2.2015. The Discrepancy Committee has decided on 30.3.2012 that benefit of reservation is only for the residents of the Punjab and it has been so decided by the Hon’ble High Court in the writ petition titled as “Yash Pal Manket Vs. State of Punjab” and “Fauja Siddiqui Shahid Vs. State of Punjab & Others.” Except amount of 2% of the earnest money, remaining amount has been ordered to be refunded.
Also Read- GMADA ordered to Refund for Delay in Possession (Purab Apartments Scheme)
JUDGEMENT:
In order to be eligible for the allocation of ‘R’ category plots, the complainant had to prove the residence certificate of Punjab or Chandigarh used by the Competent Authority or any three essential documents out of the ten provided in the list. However, even if it is taken on record that she was resident of Chandigarh but she has not been able to place on the record, three documents out of 10 documents referred above to prove her residence at Chandigarh, therefore, according to the scheme, she has not been able to prove on the record a cogent evidence to prove that she was resident of Chandigarh for the last 5 years before opening the scheme.
In the matter that came up before the Hon’ble High Court in “Yash Pal Manket Vs. State of Punjab” and “Fauja Siddiqui Shahid Vs. State of Punjab & Others.” wherein it was decided that the benefit of reservation is to be restricted to the residents of Punjab as per the policy of the Government of Punjab. In case any policy has been framed by the Ops then this Commission is not a competent authority to decide whether the policy is a correct policy or not for which she will have to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court in the writ petition. Counsel for the complainant is not entitled to allotment of the plot as she has not been able to prove her residence on the basis of documents asked for by the Ops for the last 5 years before opening of the scheme. She applied under reserve category for riot victims/terrorists affected and as per the policy of the Ops and as per the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble High Court in the writ petitions referred above that as per the policy of the Government of Punjab, the benefit of reservation is restricted to the residents of Punjab only.
The court could not find any merit in the complaint filed by the complainant and the petition was dismissed.
Also Read- GMADA’S LAND ACQUISITION EXTENDED FOR AEROTROPOLIS TOWNSHIP
For case specific advice, please connect with Top Best Expert Legal Consultants Attorneys in Real Estate/Property Estate/Consumer Court and Consumer Protection Dispute/ Consumer Grievances and Complaints/RERA Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
This post is written by Gopika Thakur.
More on 99888-17966.
