This complaint is filed on 5.4.2017 with the contention that the complainant is the owner of agriculture land in Khasra No. 665 for the area 1.02 hectare. She applied for conversion of the land and issuance of patta on 27.12.2006. Patta was issued to her on 1.9.2007 and as per demand of the non-applicant she paid Rs. 22,85,875/-. The contention of the complainant is that lease money and peripheri charges were asked excessive on 26.9.2008 the complainant herself submitted a letter to the non-applicant and thereafter vide Anx. 8 she demanded for the adjustment of the lease money charged excessive. On 16.9.2009 she was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,19,479/-. She time and again represented to the non-applicant for adjustment of the lease money but nothing has been done and lastly on 3.3.2017 she has received the demand notice to be paid within 15 days otherwise proceedings under Public Demand Recovery Act would be initiated. Hence, complaint has been filed and relief is claimed that out of the demanded amount of Rs. 5,19,479/- excess lease money should be adjusted. Further compensation for mental and physical agony, cost of litigation, compensation for unfair trade practice, compensation for the inconvenience caused to a senior citizen were also asked. In total claim for Rs. 28,50,000/- is submitted.

The contention of the non-applicant is that as per the rules money has been demanded. Initial demand is of year 2007 for which complainant herself has given communication dated 26.9.2008 and for lease money on 16.12.2009 hence, the claim is time barred. The total relief is claimed only for the lease money of Rs. 1,85,560/- hence, the claim lacks pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. As the recovery is to be started in Public Demand Recovery Act the consumer complaint is not maintainable and the claim should have been dismissed.

Both the parties entered into evidence and submitted the relevant documents. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant applied for conversion of the land vide Anx. 1. Patta Ex. 2 was issued to her on 1.9.2007 and demand note Ex. 3 was issued on 8.8.2007 which was paid vide Anx. 4. Vide Anx. 6 dated 26.9.2008 the contention of the complainant is that peripheri charges could not be levelled against her as it has no retrospective effect and vide Anx. 8 dated 16.12.2009 lease money could be charged only @ 1.25% as per rule 7 (3) (ii) of Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules 1974 and inspite reminders the adjustment has not been made and the contention of the complainant is that deficiency is evident and the claim should have been allowed.

Per contra the contention of the non-applicant is that the complaint is time barred and lacks pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.

As per the documents submitted by the complainant it is more than clear that the demand was raised vide Anx. 3 dated 8.8.2007 and it was paid vide Anx. 4. Vide Anx. 6 & 8 the complainant has raised the issue of excess payment hence, the cause of action has arisen to the complainant way back in 2008/2009 and whereas this complaint has been filed in April 2017 which is hopelessly time barred.

The contention of the complainant is that she made various representations and communications and last notice is Ex. 22 hence a new cause of action has arisen but this contention is not acceptable as for the impugned demand the cause of action has arisen to the complainant on the day demand has been raised i.e. 8.8.2007 and complainant herself has objected for the same vide Anx. 6 & 8 that too in 2008/2009 hence, the complaint is time arred and cannot be entertained. Reliance could be placed on 2013 (4) CPR (SC) 427 State Bank of India Vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries where the apex could has held as under:

It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits the forum would be committing an illegality and,therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

Here in the present case no application for section 24A is being preferred.

The other contention of the non-applicant is that complaint could not fall under the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission as the demand which has been asked is for Rs. 1,85,560/- only and to bring the complaint in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission excessive claim for mental and physical agony, cost of litigation is being added.

The contention of the complainant is that she raised the issue not only for lease money but also for peripheri charges. Be that may be the case but the relief which has been claimed by the complainant is only for the setoff of half of the lease money, the total lease money which has been deposited is Rs. 3,71,120/- and the complainant is claiming 50% rebate out of it meaning thereby that the relief is claimed only for Rs.1,85,560/- whereas the compensation is claimed as Rs.27,50,000/- to bring the claim under the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. Hence, the contention of the non-applicant seems sound and reliance could be placed on IV (2014) CPJ 111 (NC) [LQ/NCDRC/2014/2745] Sushil Gupta Vs. Master Vintage International where the National Commission has held as under:

Thus, in our considered view, the Consumer Fora at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with mala fide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the Fora concerned. In the instant case, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is only rupees eighteen lakh plus but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs.2,88,55,000/- approximately as compensation to bring this case with the jurisdiction of the National Commission. The above act of the complainant obviously is mala fide with a view to defeat the scheme of the. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction.

Hence, the complaint lacks pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.

The other contention of the non-applicant is that as the matter relates to Public Demand Recovery Act, the consumer complaint could not be entertained. The demand notice dated 3.3.2017 Ex. 22 clearly speaks that till day no proceedings under Public Demand Recovery Act are being initiated hence, the contention of the non-applicant as regard to lack of jurisdiction is not acceptable.

The non-applicant has submitted Anx. R 2 the office report of the JDA wherein half of the lease money is adjusted as per the report of the accounts section.

In view of the above, as discussed above the complaint is not maintainable and stands rejected.