ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. The Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed
a complaint alleging negligence on the part of Respondent, Ludhiana Improvement
Trust.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner in response to an
advertisement floated by the Respondent in a newspaper in the year 1976 applied for
allotment of a plot measuring 150 sq. yards. He deposited Rs. 600/- as earnest money.
Since he was neither allotted a plot then nor under any of the scheme thereafter
providing for the allotment for old applicants, a complaint was filed by the petitioner
before the District Forum praying for directions to the Respondent for allotment of plot
measuring 150 sq. yard in any scheme at old rates i.e. of 1976 and compensation of
Rs. 2,00,000/-. The District Forum after hearing the parties held that plea taken by the
complainant – much after filing the complaint. written version filed by the Respondent
and rejoinder filed by the complainant – that the original scheme provided for ‘first come
first served’ cannot be entertained now, on the well accepted principle that the
complainant cannot go beyond his pleadings. This ground was neither pleaded in the
complaint and nor taken in the rejoinder filed by the complainant. District Forum,
however, held that in the light of proviso to Rule 4 of ‘The Punjab Town Improvement
Trust (utilisation of land & Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, the complainant should have
been allotted a plot. Not doing so is a deficiency on the part of the Respondent, hence,
the Respondent was directed to include the name in the list of persons for draw of lots in
any subsequent scheme in which plots of 150 sq. yard are allotted by the
Respondent/Opposite Party. Not being satisfied with the above relief, Petitioner filed an
appeal before the State Commission who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal,
hence this Revision Petitioner.
3. It is argued by the Petitioner that there is no dispute that the Complainant’s
Registration No. was 26 of 1976. Scheme for allotment was ‘First come First Get’. He
was not allotted any plot even when his name was high on the list of those who
registered themselves under the same scheme; He has not been allotted a plot even
under any of the subsequent schemes. Only in compliance of the order of the District
Forum/State Commission has the name of the Petitioner been included in Shahede
Azam Sardar Bhagat Singh Nagar. His grouse now is that he should be charged the
1976 prices of the plot as it was on account of deficiency of the Respondent that no plot
was allotted to him. On the other hand it is argued by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent that the orders of both the lower forums are correct and are as per law
which needs to be maintained.
4. We heard the arguments of parties yet on request, learned Counsel for the
parties were given two days time to give their arguments in writing. This not having been
done, we go on to decide on the basis of material on record.
5. We have seen the voluminous material on record and heard the arguments. We
find that there is no dispute that the Complainant did register himself for allotment of a
plot of 150 sq yard with the Respondent in 1976 and paid earnest money of Rs. 600/-.
The plea that allotment was to be made in ‘First Come First Served’ basis was neither
referred to in the complaint nor in the rejoinder filed by the Complainant, whereas there
is a specific reference to draw of lots for application received in 1976, in which the name
of the Petitioner was included but he was not successful. In the rejoinder filed by the
Petitioner, the fact of draw of lot is neither contradicted nor challenged. Further, neither in the
appeal filed before the State Commission nor in the Revision Petition filed before the
National Commission, has the Petitioner, who is a lawyer by profession, countered the
proposition of law that the Complainant cannot go beyond its pleadings which is well
settled law. No effort/attempt to file a revised complaint is on record to revise the
complaint to contain the Complainant’s later averments on this point. Hence, we agree
with the District Forum that the Petitioner can not be allowed to go beyond his pleadings.
6. The thrust in the rejoinder filed before the District Forum and in the menu of
appeal filed, before the State Commission appears to be that the Respondent should
have included his name for draw of lots framed under ‘Punjab Town Improvement
(Utilisation of Land allotment of plots) Rules, 1983. The District Forum has given relief,
in view of no action by the Respondent under the proviso of Rule 4 of these Rules. In
our view the District Forum erred in this regard. Rule 11(4) of the same Rule read as
under:-
“Every person whose application for allotment of residential plot of multi-storeyed
Lease is pending with any Trust on the commencement of these rules shall also
be required to apply afresh for allotment of residential plot of multi-storeyed
house, as the case may be in Form ‘B’ in accordance with his eligibility as
specified in Rule 10.”
7. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner applied afresh for allotment
of plot to take advantage of these rules. It is only after an application made that he
would have been eligible to have his name included for allotment following procedure
under Rule 12. Point of limitation has also been raised in the affidavit filed by the
Chairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Admitted position of law is that law
point/question of limitation can be raised at any stage. Admitted position is application
was made for allotment of plot in 1976 by the Complainant. Draw of lots was held on
30.7.76. The Complainant was not successful. Cause of action thus arose in 1976.
Next time, action taken by the Petitioner in only in 1982 by way of requesting the
Respondent to look into the matter. Any amount of correspondence does not extend
the limitation. Complaint is filed only in September, 1994.
8. Be that as it may, we find that the Petitioner has no case to claim a plot on 1976
prices. District Forum and the State Commission in our view have – interpreted the
provisions of the Rules generously. Record also shows that the Petitioner has been
offered, to be included in the list of applicants in a new scheme in pursuance of the
orders of the lower forums. The petitioner is not entitled to any other relief. This
Revision Petition is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their
own costs.