HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT

1. This is to consider, a complaint case filed by the complainant praying for direction upon the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to hand over the flat or to pay the total consideration amount in respect of 1/3^rd share out of 50% of the constructed area as per market rate and as per the sanctioned plan and also for passing an order for permanent injunction restraining the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 from selling, transferring, alienating and/or receiving the booking amount from anyone in respect of the schedule property as mentioned in the petition of complaint.

2. The facts of the complaint case in short are that the complainant and opposite party no. 3 and 4 entered into a development agreement on 12.04.2017 and opposite party nos. 1 and 2 promised to give 50% of the constructed area to the complainant and opposite party nos. 3 and 4. As per development agreement dated 12.04.2017 the developer shall hand over 50% of the constructed area within 31.12.2019 to the complainant and the opposite party nos. 3 and 4. Thereafter, developer constructed G+3 storied building on the schedule property, but the developer did not hand over the flat to the complainant. The complainant on several occasions requested the developer to hand over the flat as per development agreement but the developer did not pay any heed to it. The developer proposed the complainant to take money instead of the flat and informed the complainant that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 will not give the complainant his allocated flat. Finding no other way, the complainant under compulsion agreed to take some money as advance in respect of the allocation of 1/3^rd of 50% share. Thereafter, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) only as security deposit which is refundable to the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 without interest after hand over of complainant’s allocation. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 also paid Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh) only to the complainant as advance for 1/3^rd  of 50% share of allocation. The developer informed that they will not hand over the 1/3^rd of 50% share of allocation to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant revoked the power of attorney and informed the developer about it. Hence, this case.

3. The complainant has valued the complaint case at Rs. 72,73,199/- (Rupees seventy two lakh seventy three thousand one hundred ninety nine) only.

4. On careful perusal of the petition of complaint, it appears that the complainant has filed this case alone and he has sought for relief for his portion only as his owner’s allocation and he has also prayed for direction upon the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to hand over the flat or to pay the total consideration amount in respect of his 1/3^rd share out of 50% of the constructed area. This being the situation, the valuation of the instant complaint case should have been done for his undivided portion only, but in this case he has showed valuation of the whole property which includes other co-sharers who are not seeking any reliefs before us.

5. Under this facts and circumstances, within the ambit of the instant complaint case does not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission, since this commission will now have jurisdiction for valuation of Rs. 50 Lakh to Rs. 2 Crores.

6. Thus on consideration of the facts as disclosed by the materials placed before us and the matter applicable to this case, we are of the opinion that this commission has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint filed by the complainant alone.

7. In the result, the petition of complaint be and the same is returned to the filing advocate of the complainant for presenting the same before the proper commission.

8. The complaint case stands disposed of accordingly.