Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      The captioned complaint case is filed u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) by the complainant alleging about deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs and thereby claim compensation and cost thereof.

3.   The case of the complainantin nutshell is that the complainant being allured by the advertisement made by the OPs on 8.11.1993, purchased application form and submitted it before the OP who directed to deposit Rs. 15,000/- and the complainant applied same. As per agreement complainant was allotted 2400 sqft plot  with condition that the OPs would make teak wood  plantation and after the growth of the teak wood,  would be sold for Rs.9,00,000/- with additional benefit to the complainant for  three days  free of cost in the resorts to be constructed by the OPs at the plantation side. Accordingly, sale-cum-agreement was executed between the parties on 12.5.1994. In the meantime,  20 years have passed but the OPs did  not provide any benefit of possession of purchased plot. Complainant alleged that the OPs have already sold the teak wood and received the payment of Rs.9,00,000/- but never paid any money to the complainant as per the agreement.

4.      On the other hand, OPs took the plea that there is  damaged to the teak wood in the 1999  due to super cyclone and subsequently, also during in the phailine (super cyclone). Thereafter, the complainant made grievance before the OPs on 27.5.2016, 16.8.2017 and 21.3.2018.At the same time complainant filed the complaint before the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA, Odisha), Bhubaneswarand served legal notice against the OPs. OPs after receiving the legal notice replied that they have offered Rs. 1,73,361/- only to  the  complainant. The complainant submitted that the offer was not as per the agreement. Since the complainant has been harassed due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, OPs are liable to pay cost of  land with further prayer  for payment of Rs.12,00,000/- towards  cost of the land, Rs.15,00,000/- towards price of teak wood, Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment with  interest thereon and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of legal notice.

5.      OPs filed written version stating that the case is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action to file the case and at the same time, he admitted that there was  an agreement executed  between the parties and as per the agreement they have received Rs.15,000/- and also made teak plantation which was damaged in the super cyclone and phailine. However, the allegation made by the complainant is frivolous and false. On 25.2.2015 OPs have admitted that during the super cyclone teak trees felted and  were also uprooted, after that the Forest  Officer marked the trees, measured and prepared a list of logs, which shows 775 logs measuring 1679.56 cft and fire woods were sold. At last they have admitted that there was a case filed in RERA. However, the OPs were ready to pay Rs.1,73,361/- but the complainant  did not accept. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.      After going through the pleadings  one issue is emerge whether the  complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.      The complainant in order to prove his case  examined  himself and documents. OPs in order to disprove the  case of the complainant  has examined one witness in his favour. It is  admitted by both the parties that  sale-cum-agreement was executed between the parties on 12.5.1994.

8.      On perusal of above document, it appears that the offer was made by the OPs to the complainant for plantation of teak trees by the OPs but the entire fruit would be made available to the complainant. It is also available from the documents that OPs have received Rs.15,000/- from the complainant for the land agreed between the parties. The area was allotted for  2400sqft. Complainant in order to prove his case has filed the necessary documents and it appears that the complainant was allotted land and payment has also been made on different occasions.

9.      After necessary sale deed executed vide Annexure – 1 complainant requested on 27.5.2016 to the OPs to handover possession of land as the teak wood  in the case land were damaged but however, the growth of the teak wood became 1.5 ft of girth.  However,  the complainant asked the OPs to refund the entire amount. Complainant has requested to handover the possession of the land and settle the issue. Complainant also filed the copy of the order  dated 2.7.2019  passed in Complaint Case No. 185 of 2018  by the RERA. In that order the case was dismissed as matter has not come under the purview of RERA. Thereafter, the present complaint has been filed showing deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

10.    The OPs denied  the case of the complainant and filed the written version with the evidence on affidavit. It reveals from the evidence on affidavit of the OPs that the OPs have made agreement with the complainant but it is revealed from the evidence that  after taking consent of the complainant, they have sold the teak wood and received Rs.1,73,361/-. But at the same time, OPs admitted in para 20 that they have proceeded to sell 1679 cft of teak wood and received Rs.9,00,000/-  within the knowledge of the complainant.  It is only stated that the tree which were planted was destroyed by the super cyclone but admitted about sale of such teak wood and received the amount. It is  stated that in spite of office of OPs  pay the cost of the land, complainant still went ahead to file the case.

11.    After going through the evidence of both the sides, we are of the view that the there is agreement executed between both the parties and accordingly, complainant was allotted a land which is of course does not belong to the OPs but belongs to the State Government under the Forest Department as it appears from the statement of learned counsel for the OPs. When the person knowing well that  it is forest land and  transfer the land under the guise of his own land, definitely,  it is unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

12.    It is admitted by the Ops in his evidence that they have received Rs.9,00,000/- by selling the teak wood. At the same time,  they have taken the plea that  there was super cyclone and phailine  and by that teak woods were destroyed  but they sold it for Rs.9,00,000/-..

13.    Be that as it may, when the evidence affidavit of OPW 1 has not proved its bonafideness,  there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Be that as it may, we are of the view that not only the complainant  has proved the sale of   suit land in fraud manner but also proved the entire deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.

14.    Question arises whether on 2400 sqft land 775 numbers of teak wood are possible to be grown up. Ratherafter going through the  pleadings, we are of the view that the teak trees were damaged and they were sold out with Rs.9,00,000/-. Since OPs have failed to establish how many teak woods actually grown up on the suit land of the complainant, we are of the opinion that out of Rs.9,00,000/- complainant is definitely entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/-  only as valuation of trees.

15.    So far  the valuation of Mouza Madhupur is  concerned, the cost of land must be 10 times  of earlier cost. However, the complainant has not made clear the present valuationcost of the land, we have to decide according to the cost of the land prevalent or the bench mark valuation. It is made clear that none ofthe parties have been able to produce the cost of the land. However, the complainant submitted through his advocate that cost of land would be Rs.12,00,000/-. Therefore,  considering the submission of learned counsel for the complainant and fact that cost of land is enhanced, we are of the view that thecomplainant is entitled to Rs.6,00,000/- towards cost of land from the OPs within a period of  45 days. The complainant alleged that since he has expected to get the land delivered but the OPs clearly informed in the evidence that due to some disturbances the land could not be delivered. Complainantalleged that this is a forest land and by suppressing the true fact the land has been sold to the complainant. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment. Therefore, in that regard he is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-.

16.    In view of discussion made above, the complaint is allowed in part and we hereby direct the OPs to pay Rs.11,00,000/-  to the complainant towards cost of land, compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 45 days failing which all  will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum  from thedate of payment of  cost of land till thedate of payment is made.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.