Improvement Trust, Ludhiana & Anr vs Shakti Co-Op. House Bldg. Soceity Ltd

2. Material facts, giving rise to the appeal are as under: 2

3. In the year 1970, the appellant--Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, hereinafter referred to as "the Trust", formulated a scheme, styled as Model Town Extension Scheme Part II. For the said purpose, proceedings for acquisition of land in certain villages were initiated. Lands owned by several co-operative housing societies were also notified as part of the land proposed to be acquired. However, before the announcement of awards in respect of the lands to be acquired, representations were made by several societies to the Trust as also to the Government seeking exemption of their land from acquisition. The Trust acceded to the request by some of the societies and recommended to the Government that the land of these societies be exempted from acquisition, which was accepted by the Government. The respondent Society was also amongst those societies who were granted exemption. Notwithstanding making of the awards, the Trust neither took possession of the land belonging to the respondent nor paid any compensation. Subsequently in the year 1981-82, the Government also issued a notification under Section 56 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 for abandonment of proposal for acquisition of lands belonging to these societies, the respondent Society being one of them. 3 The exemption was on certain terms and conditions with which we are not directly concerned in this appeal.

4. It appears that after the issue of the said exemption notification, the respondent Society requested the Trust to allot plots to their members as large portions of their land were under encroachment. Apparently, the request of the Society was not legally correct inasmuch as due to the exemption, the Society remained owner of their land and the Trust was neither competent nor under any obligation to allot plots to them. Thus, the Trust did not accept the request of the Society for allotment of plots and till the year 1990 nothing tangible seems to have happened. However, when one B.D. Aggarwal took over as Chairman of the Improvement Trust, the process for allotting plots to certain societies suddenly gained momentum. So much so, the land of one Society was exchanged with the land of another Society and plots were allotted even on the land belonging to the Trust. In the case of the respondent Society, as per condition of exemption, the Society could carve out plots in area admeasuring upto 23,000 sq. yds. but the Trust carved out 154 plots in 23,800 sq. yds. Out of these, 123 plots were given to the Society including 25 plots in the land belonging to other societies and 4 3 plots on Trust's land. It seems that the Society was not satisfied with the said allotment, inasmuch as its stand was that the Trust, through its Chairman had taken over the land of the Society by acquisition and had promised to allot about 151 plots. Out of 151 plots the possession of one plot bearing No. 32, measuring 150 sq. yds situated in Model Town Extension Part II Block C, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, was not given by the Trust to the Society on the ground that a suit in respect of the private land, which was subject matter of Plot No. 32 had been filed. The said civil suit was decreed and land on which Plot No. 32 had been carved out was held to be belonging to one Gurcharan Singh. After the decree, the Society requested the appellant to allot alternative plot to them in lieu of Plot No.

5. Having failed to get any response from the appellant, on 1st March, 1996, the Society, through its secretary filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ("District Forum" for short) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") for issuing a direction to the appellant to allot an alternative plot in lieu of Plot No.

6. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that when the irregularities committed by the former Chairman and Executive Officer of the Trust came to the notice of the Government, vide his order dated 19th December, 1996, the Principal Secretary, Local Government directed the Director, Local Government to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the Trust. The enquiry officer found grave irregularities in allotment of plots by the said two office bearers of the appellant in connivance with the management of the societies. Some of the irregularities listed by the enquiry officer, and which have significant bearing on the present appeal are extracted below.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 30th July, 1997 held that though the Society was given the exemption, the area was developed by the Trust and it was then offered to the Society in the form of possession of 151 residential plots of 150 sq. yds. each, and therefore, not handing over a plot in lieu of Plot No.32 amounted to "unfair trade practice" on the part of the appellant Trust. Thus, the decision of the District Forum was affirmed. As noted earlier, the National Commission has dismissed appellant's petition on the ground that since both the fora below have given their verdict in favour of the respondent there was no ground for interference. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Trust and its Chairman are before us in this appeal.

7. It seems that thereafter criminal cases were registered against the said B.D. Aggarwal, K.R. Garg on the basis of the said report. The District Forum, vide order dated 30th July, 1997, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to allot an 7 alternative plot in an equally developed scheme within three months and pay cost of Rs. 2000.

15. Having examined the matter in the light of the factual scenario, noted above, we are of the opinion that answer to the question formulated above has to be in the negative.

18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Commission , affirming the finding of the State Commission and the District Forum that the appellant had indulged in "unfair trade practice", attracting 1 Section 2(r) of the Act, is set aside with costs, quantified at Rs.20,000/-.