13-12-2023

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appeal preferred by the OP No.1 in the complaint. Notice against the Respondent No.2 dispensed.

2. Heard from the appellant and learned advocate for appellant submits that, the entire sites which were allotted to the complainants were designated as park in the original layout and after the requisition received from the complainant for execution of sale deed a team of officers were inspected the spot and noticed that the said sites were designated for park and the same was produced before the District Consumer Commission, but the District Commission without considering the said facts had directed this appellant to execute the sale deed. In fact the order passed by the District Commission lacks legality. As per the Section 39 of Karnataka Urban Development Authority (KUDA) Act, it prohibits for execution of the sale deed when the land was designated for development of park, though the sale deed was executed, the said sale deed becomes null and void and the purpose may not be served, hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.           

3. The advocate for respondent No.2 submits that, the society had obtained permission from the Government of Karnataka through CDP approved for development of sites and the said area was not developed as park and it is converted into sites as per the revised plan. The said documents are produced before the District Commission. After considering the said facts also the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to execute the same. The order passed by the District Commission is not accordance with law, hence prays to dismiss the appeal.    

4. Heard from both side.

5. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal along with the documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, the Respondent No.2/Society/Developer had allotted the site in favour of complainant, subsequent to allotment they sought for execution of sale deed from the local authority i.e. MUDA/appellant. At this junction of time, they objected to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant as per the provision of Section 39 of Karnataka Urban Development Authority (KUDA) Act. At the same time, the advocate for respondent No.1/complainant had filed a memo with the order passed by the Principle Bench and submits that the same similar case has been disposed by directing the appellant to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and produced the same.

6. On perusal of the said certified copy of the order, the Principle Bench has directed this appellant to execute the sale deed. Hence we are of the opinion that, the matter is covered by judgment rendered by the Principle Bench in Appeal No.3779/2009, 1687/2019 and 1688/2019 and the Principle Bench has categorically opined that the site allotted to the complainant is not a CA site and they are rightly possessed the facts that, if the schedule property is not CA site, the Appellant/MUDA would have executed the registered lease-cum-sale deed and hand over the possession of the same to the complainant. However, we are of the opinion that, when the matter in board is covered by judgment, no further discussion is required. 

7. Considering the said direction, the sites allotted to the complainant not a CA sites, hence the appellant is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of complainant. As such the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the District Commission is confirmed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

Member                                            Judicial Member