ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. versus CHARANJIT KAUR

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 07-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR.
v.
CHARANJIT KAUR
(Civil Appeal No. 4964 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(o) and s.14(1)(e) –
Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Leasehold Land Tenure into
Freehold Land Tenure Rules, 1996 – Respondent-complainant
sought conversion of a plot allotted by Chandigarh administration
from leasehold to freehold site – District Consumer Forum directed
appellant-Estate Officer to convert the plot on acceptance of
requisite conversion fee; to pay compensation; and also costs of
litigation – Order affirmed by State and National Consumer
Commissions – Plea of appellant-Estate Officer that the findings
recorded by National Commission that the respondents are
consumers as charges have been paid for conversion, are not
tenable  for the reason that the charges deposited were not for any
services to be rendered but to grant complete title to the allottees
– It was contended that such conversion fee was in fact part of
the sale consideration to confer complete title to an allottee – Held:
The appellant is not charging any fee for conversion of leasehold
property into freehold property except the amount in accordance
with the 1996 Rules – The amount so fixed under the Rules would
form part of the sale consideration and not a fee or charge levied
for providing any kind of service – Appellant is not providing any
services within the meaning of s.2(1)(o) of the Consumer Act – The
expression ‘service’ includes housing construction and not
allotment of a site or a plot – Since the respondents are already in
possession of the sites as lessee on 99 years basis, it cannot be
said that the appellant was deficient in providing any service, which
even if used in a liberal sense would not include transfer of title
in an immovable property – Thus, the consumer fora under the Act
would not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints
on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title
of the immovable property – Though it is not a case of the
deficiency in service as contemplated by Consumer Act but, on
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 120
120
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
121
facts, in exercise of power under Art.142 of the Constitution,
various directions issued to the Chandigarh Administration
including direction to decide the claim of conversion as on the date
when consumer complaints were filed – Chandigarh Lease Hold
of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 – Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007
– Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 142.
Administrative Law – Administrative process – Office Notings
– Held: A noting is a part of the decision-making process – Such
noting does not fructify into an order unless the same is
communicated to the affected person.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The respondents claim conversion of lease hold
sites to free hold sites on payment of the charges fixed by the
Chandigarh Administration. Such conversion was sought in view
of the fact that as against the limited right in the lease property
for 99 years, the Administration decided to grant freehold rights
on satisfaction of certain conditions mentioned in the Chandigarh
Conversion of Residential Leasehold Land Tenure into Freehold
Land Tenure Rules, 1996. The respondents had paid the
premium amount as fixed under the Chandigarh Lease Hold of
Sites and Building Rules, 1973. Now, the claim is for purchase
of remaining rights of the Central Government to convert the
site into freehold. The Central Government continues to be
owner of the land until the entire consideration money together
with interest or any other amount is paid to the Central
Government on account of transfer of any site or building or both
as provided in Section 3 of the Capital of Punjab (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1952. Therefore, the owner i.e., the Central
Government, cannot be said to be a trader or a service provider.
The appellant is not charging any fee for conversion of leasehold
property into freehold property except the amount in accordance
with the Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Leasehold Land
Tenure into Freehold Land Tenure Rules, 1996, which is part
of the sale consideration. It is thus a case of sale of immovable
property on the terms as were fixed in the 1996 Rules. The
amount so fixed under the Rules would form part of the sale
consideration and not a fee or charge levied for providing any
kind of service. [Para 18][13

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.