Dear Sir,
Before your good self I am presenting my case where Topkhanadesh, Arbitrator of DR Society and others through illegal activities usurped the plot of the undersigned. I, therefore request you to investigate the matter threadbare and save the interest of the Plot holder and do justice to victims. Following is the brief history of the case.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE
1. That Sushil Kumar Sarawagi (SKS) of 401, Mangalam, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata 700001 bought a plot no. 26 of 400 sq. yds. Situated at Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur From Nirmal Kumar Saraf (NKS) of 504, Mangalam, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata 700001 on 13.02.2001 by the payment of a\c payee Cheque of Rs. 450000\= on The Vysya bank. The cheque is duly encashed by NKS.
2. NKS has received the plot through allotment from the Society – Topkhanadesh Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti, registered vide Regn. No. 2601L at Jaipur. The allotment Letter (Patta), money receipt of Rs. 5000\=, Site Plan of the Plot and Site plan of the colony was given to NKS by Topkhanadesh.
3. NKS paid the Conversion charges Rs. 10450\= vide demand draft to JDA in the year 1986 to issue the lease deed in the name of NKS.
4. On due diligence of the record of JDA and DR Society, Mini Sachiwalaya, Jaipur, SKS found the said Plot standing in the name of NKS.
5. NKS executed the Agreement to Sale in favour of SKS on 13.02.2001 and handed over all the papers a) Patta b) Money receipt Rs. 5000\= c) Site plan of plot d) site plan of the colony and e) receipt of Rs. 10450\= of JDA alongwith the money receipt of Rs. 450000\= to SKS and NKS handed over the physical possession of the plot to SKS.
6. The said colony by then 13.02.2001 and till date is not JDA approved colony.
7. SKS constructed the boundary wall and a kucha room on the plot and was waiting for the camp of JDA to obtain the Lease Deed from the JDA.
8. In September 2008, some local people of Jaipur informed SKS that some person is trying to encroach on the Plot.
9. SKS immediately approached DR Society, Mini Sachiwalaya, Jaipur, JDA and High Court and obtained the certified copies of all the papers of plot no. 26 under RTI Act. And found that by virtue of an arbitrator’s order Dt. 30.07.2003 Smt. Hira Devi Jain (HDJ) grabbed the plot and got the same transferred in her name in DR Society, Jaipur in the year 2005. On perusal of the Arbitrator’s order and Raj. High Court order the following facts came to light: -
10. High court in its order Dt. 31.09.1997 in case DB Civil Appeal No. 96/91 & 198/91 passed the judgment:
(2)
“The plots which have so far been allotted by the Society to the members contrary to the Rules, as explained above, should be considered to be regularized so that the public may not be put to any inconvenience and the procedure is so simplified that even the allegation as has been made in this case that the agreement is pre-dated or receipts have been obtained without making the payment, does not happen in any other case.”
“ Be that as it may, the said cases of such purchasers may be regularized by the JDA, in accordance with law as far as practicable. We make it clear that after depositing of the necessary conversion charges, lease deeds are to be issued by the JDA, in accordance with law.”
In another case no. SB110/1986 order dt. 21.01.1996, the Ld. High Court ruled that
“ The commissioner, JDA has already called a list of members as on 17.05.1994. The date was subsequently extended till 31.05.1994. The land which has been allotted by the Societies to its members till that date should be tried to be regularized (except in case where the land is under acquisition or has already been acquired for any other purpose or where the plots have been allotted in such a strip of land where the construction of house is impossible like allotment of land in the area of Nala or low lying areas etc.) so that right of those plot holders are not affected. A regular Patta should be issued to the plot holders by the JDA.
11. In compliance to the above High Court’s order, the Topkhanadesh (Society) submitted the list of Members who had been allotted the Plots vide its letter dt. 23.07.1998 and enclosed three documents I) List of members ii) Xerox copy of notice dt. 17.01.94 and iii) copy of High Court Order.
12. According to the list submitted to JDA by Topkhanadesh, the name of NKS is still there in JDA, as the colony is not regularized and JDA Patta not issued to the Holders instead of High Court order.
“ The Government Departments vide their various circulars had cleared the stand regarding Allotment of Plots that the Allotment once made is final and payment of installments and taking possession of the property is procedural matters. Circular no. 471 DT. 15.10.1986 by CBDT.”
It is very much unfortunate that in spite of observations of High Court and the Government directions, the illegal activity is being continuously repeated/carried on by the Executive persons of Topkhanadesh in collusion with some of the officers of JDA and DR Society to grab the plot no. 26 and others by getting first filed a collusive application by Madan Lal Ajmera before the Arbitrator of DR Society with the ulterior motive just to bring the non-est resolution of cancellations of Plots on record and thereby benefiting the Society.
13. The focal points of the arbitration proceedings are as below:
a) Madan Lal Ajmera (AML), Petitioner, filed the arbitration against the Topkhanadesh.
(3)
b) The case is between AML Vs. I) Topkhanadesh thru’ Mantri ii) Poonam Chand Jain, ex-President of Topkhanadesh and iii) Chandra Kant Ruia (CKR), ex-Mantri of Topkhanadesh. None other was made the party nor any notices were served on any one in the case.
c) AML contended that he had made full payment to Topkhanadesh but neither the money had been refunded to him nor the Plot had been allotted to him. Instead,
Six persons (NKS is one in six name), who are not resident of Jaipur, had been allotted the Plot. Hence the justice should be made to him.
d) Defendant no. 2 did not made his presence and No. 3 was died as informed By Topkhanadesh but Topkhanadesh never informed the DR Society for this earlier while the same is legal requirement.
e) Its President, Mr. Prakash Chandra Sharma (PCS), represented Topkhanadesh. PCS stated that vide the Resolution dt. 05.01.99 & 05.03.99, the plot of these six persons are cancelled as they did not belong to Jaipur and full payment not received and allotted the said plots to other persons. Plot no.26 of NKS allotted to HDJ.
f) The said resolution purported to be signed by the CKR 15 days before his death. As per evidence Act. Such resolution, which was signed by CKR and not certified or signed by the then president, PCS, cannot be made evidence in the case. This non-est resolution was made a tool to cheat the Plot holders in connivance with AML and arbitrator and to avoid criminal liability on PCS in any case. In case of other parties where NKS is not the party, how the Arbitrator can confirm the cancellation of the plot of NKS done by the Topkhanadesh in the said arbitration proceedings. Thus Arbitrator traveled beyond his jurisdiction and liable to be prosecuted.
g) The order of the arbitrator in case where none of the cancelled plot holders were made the party nor notices were issued to them, cannot be enforced on the parties concerned. Moreover, these six parties were not the subject matter of the case. Citing of the name in the petition of AML cannot be the cause for cancellation of plot.
h) Once the Final list submitted to JDA as per High Court order, the cancellation can only be made thru’ High court order otherwise the same is illegal, ultra virus and void ab-initio.
i) The arbitrator writes in his Order and note sheet “ dinank 07.07.2003 ko Vadi evam Prativadi sankhya 1 Ki aur se Shri Prakash Chandra Sharma upasthit”. This speaks loudly that both Plaintiff and Defendant are one and the same person. Thus, this petition is frivolous, illegal, ultra virus and nothing but a shame proceedings to cheat the plot holders.
j) Societies Act. 2001, does not contain the provisions for cancellation of Plots once allotted as per Rules.
k) The Patta and Power of Attorney given by HDJ to Bimal kr. Jain is enough to prove that She belongs to Guwahati, Assam and not Jaipur.
(4)
l) Moreover, the Plot no. 22A, earlier allotted to HDJ gone into road. Hence as per High Court order the same cannot be regularized. This is also the violation of the Court Order.
m) The JDA and Rajasthan Govt. are the party to the High Court Order.
n) HDJ did not mention anywhere the date when the Plot no. 26 allotted to her. Rather she cited/enclosed the order of the arbitrator 21.07.2003 to get the plot transferred in her name in DR Society in the year 2005.
I am enclosing herewith the copy of Writ petition no. 866/2009 filed in the Rajasthan High Court. The Ld. High Court had already ordered on 30.1.2009 “ Issue notices to the respondents. Meanwhile, status quo with regard to plot in question shall be maintained.”
I, under the circumstances, request your honour to initiate the enquiry into the matter, which is well within the power of Housing Ministry, Rajasthan to establish the fact of the case and the role of the arbitrator and the illegal, ultra-virus act/working of the Topkhanadesh. The act of Topkhanadesh against its own Byelaws, Rules and Regulations and Societies Act. must be investigated in the light of the Auditor’s qualifications/comments/observations and the Societies Act. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society and the Ministry of housing and C0-operative society, who is empowered under the Societies Act., must exercise its powers to nail the culprits and save the people from being victimized to the illegal acts of the Society- Topkhanadesh.
Thanking You and anticipating your early action into the matter.
Yours Faithfully,
( Sushil Kumar Sarawagi )
401, Mangalam, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata- 700001.
Mob. 09874700601
c.c. to 1. The Chief Minister, Jaipur
2. Syt. Shanti Lal Dhariwal, Urban & Rural Minister, Jaipur.
3. JDC, JDA, Opp. Birla Mandir, Jaipur.
4. DR Society, Mini Sachiwalaya, 5th Floor, Jaipur.
NOTE.
– How on the basis of the Arbitrator’ Order where Hira Devi Jain is not the party, the plot had been transferred by the C0-Operative Society. Bimal Jain presented the Power of Attorney of Hira Devi Jain. Neither of them was present to evidence the Power of Attorney while the same is the Rule of the Society for transferring the plot. This gives a very bad smell of collusion of the Authorities with the persons.
