Heirs can file case for possession

Nathdwara Nagar Palika had invited applications for allotment of plots. Godavari Devi applied for two plots measuring 18 ft x 37 ft. The entire amount for the plots was deposited on February 16, 1983, and separate receipts for both the plots were also issued to her. Godavari was informed that the plots allotted to her were located behind the Public Works Department Guest House.

Godavari was also asked to submit the building plans, and permission for construction was granted on July 1, 1983, upon payment of the requisite charges. However, actual possession of the plots was not given. So Godavari inquired if possession of some other plots could be given to her. She was assured that her request would be considered. Since the Nagar Palika did not take any further action, she approached the Lok Adalat. At the hearing held on March 29, 2003, Godavari was 

told that her request would be considered by the Nagar Palika at its next meeting.

Meanwhile, Godavari passed away. Her son Vikram and her husband Kishanlal Paliwal then approached the District Forum seeking possession of the plots which had already been allotted, and a direction to execute the lease deed. The Nagar Palika contested the case, contending that possession had already been handed over to Godavari and subsequently permission for construction had also been granted. It blamed Godavari for failing to commence construction, due to which some other persons had illegally taken over the plots.

The Forum allowed the complaint. The Nagar Palika's appeal to the Rajasthan State Commission was also dismissed. The matter was carried in a revision petition to the National Commission.

The Nagar Palika raised various objections. It argued that the complaint was time-barred since it was filed in the year 2005 for an allotment made way back in 1983. Overruling this objection, the National Commission observed that there was a continuous and recurrent cause of action as possession had not been given. The Nagar Palika then contended that Godavari's son and husband were not its consumers as the plots had not been allotted to them. This objection was also rejected, holding that they were the legal heirs, and would step into the allottee's shoes upon her demise.

On merits, the National Commission observed that the Nagar Palika had not produced any documentary evidence to show that possession had been given. So a direction was given to the Municipal Commissioner to remain present and produce the possession letter. The Chairman of the Corporation filed his affidavit saying that despite making all efforts, the file was not traceable as the matter was over 22 years old, and so no documentation could be produced.

The National Commission pointed out that in the absence of any evidence regarding the delivery of plots, the order passed by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission was justified. Accordingly, by its order of July 26, 2018, delivered by Justice V K Jain, the revision petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

In short, a complaint can be filed by the legal heirs of a consumer. There is continuing cause of action when possession is not given, so the law of limitation will not apply.

The writer is a consumer activist