State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangana At Hyderabad
EA No. 7 of 2017
In
CC No. 14 of 2016
Between :
- M/s. Hill County Properties Ltd
( Formerly Maytas Properties Ltd)
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory
Neerav Kapasi, S/o Late Yashwant Kapasi,
O/o Hill Country, Bachupally,
Hyderabad – 500 090.…Petitioner/OP No.1
And
- Sandeep Khurana,
S/o Ramesh Chander Khurana
- Smt. Sarika Khurana, W/o Sandeep Khurana,
Both R/o 107, Primroe, Serene County,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500 032.
- M. Teja Pratap Raju,
S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju
Office at MCH, H.no. 6-3-1186/5/A,
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
- State Bank of India,
Rep. by its asst. General Manager, RACTC,
Administrative Wing -1, 3rd floor,
Panty Centre, Secunderabad..Respondents/OP no. 2 to 4
(Respondent No. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties )
Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : M/s. K. Vishweshwara Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Sripada Prabhakar
Coram : Hon’ ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal, President
And
Hon’ble Sri K. Ramesh … Member
Tuesday, the Seventeenth Day of July
Two Thousand and Eighteen
Oral Order
*****
- This is an application filed U/s. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for non-compliance of the order dated 27.04.2012 in CC No. 14 of 2010.
- Heard and perused the record.
- An order in CC 14/2010 was passed and directed the 1st opposite party, i.e., the petitioner herein to refund the amount paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% pa from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- and further directed on payment of the said amount, the complainants were directed to re-convey the property to the developer, i.e., the petitioner herein and the registration charges and stamp duty shall be borne by the developer/petitioner herein.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that instead of executing re-conveyance deed, the respondents may be directed to execute cancellation of sale deed and filed copy of the order passed in EA No. 87 of 2013, wherein, this State Commission passed an order on 19.02.2016 and observed that in the circumstances, if need be, the petitioners/ complainants may execute re-conveyance deed in favour of the first respondent/opposite party and the said word ‘ re-conveyance deed has been rounded of and the above said word ‘ cancellation’ was incorporated’ . The order passed by this Commission is quite contrary to the order passed in the main CC and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
- The order passed by this Commission in CC No. 14 of 2010 was not only confirmed by the Hon’ble National Commission, but, also, it was up-held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, the relief sought for by the petitioner appears to be quite un-sustainable, for the simple reason, the person who executes sale deed can only be competent for cancellation of the said sale deed, but, none other person can cancel the said sale deed. The petitioner, herein, having executed sale deed, he cannot expect the other person in whose favour the said sale deed executed to execute a deed cancelling the sale deed. Thus, it appears that the relief sought for by the petitioner appears to be totally unsustainable.
- Hence, the respondents herein are directed to execute re-conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month, i.e., by 17.08.2018, as has been directed by this State Commission in CC No. 13 of 2010 and confirmed by the Hon’ble National Commission in FA No. 325 of 2012 and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 27040 of 2013.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DATED : 17.07.2018.
