V.K.AGARWAL,PRESIDENT - (1.) SINCE both these appeals preferred under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against the same order dated 27.2.2007 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short) in Complaint No. 42/2006, they are being disposed of by this common order. Appeal No. 161/2007 has been preferred by O.P. - Udaya Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit (hereinafter called the 'Society' for short), while Appeal No. 170/2007 has been preferred by the complainant - Smt. Anusuiya Jogi. Since, the said two appeals are cross -appeals, the parties shall be referred to, in this order, as the O.P. and complainant, for the sake of convenience.
(2.) INDISPUTABLY , the O.P. - Society has undertaken development of land and had allotted plots to its members. It is also not in dispute that Plot No. B -19/10, Sector 3 of the said society was initially allotted to its member Rakesh Bais. The complainant -Smt. Anusuiya Jogi with the object to purchase of the said plot from the member of Society Rakesh Bais applied to the O.P. -Society for issuance of No Objection Certificate ('NOC' for short). NOC dated 1.2.2005 was issued by the O.P. -society as prayed by the complainant -Anusuiya Jogi. It is further not in dispute that the said Rakesh Bais executed a Sale Deed dated 2.2.2005 in favour of complainant -Anusuiya Jogi, regarding the said plot No. B -19/10, Sector 3 of the O.P./Society.
(3.) THE complainant averred that she had to incur total expenditure of Rs. 2,82,514 in the purchase and execution of some works in the said plot. It was also averred by the complainant that the present market value of the plot is Rs. 6,00,000. The complainant's grievance was that there was encroachment by some persons, on the said plot. In the above context it was averred that a truck was parked in the said plot, purchased by the complainant. It was further averred that though the complainant requested the O.P. - society for taking action for removing the encroachment as above, but the complainant's request was not heeded to, by the O.P. -society. It was further averred that a board of some Sandeep Dhariwal was also affixed on the plot, purchased by the complainant. The complainant further averred that she submitted a map for permission for construction on the said plot. However, the map was also not approved by Municipal Corporation and permission was not granted to the complainant. It was averred that the complainant had purchased the plot after the O.P./Society had issued NOC; hence it was the obligation of the O.P. Society to have removed the encroachment. It hower, failed to do so, as a result of which the complainant is not in a position to proceed with the construction on the said plot. Complaining of inconvenience, loss, mental harassment and torture to her; the complainant prayed in the complaint that the O.P. -society be directed to remove the encroachment on the said plot; and in the alternative, the O.P. - society be directed to allot another similar plot to the complainant and that it should be otherwise directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,000, the present market value of the plot, to the complainant.;