BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 07^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. To comply with all the conditions stipulated in the order of conversation and approval of the layout plan by BMICAPA and provide all the civic amenities to the site registered.
2. To grant compensation, punitive damages of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for failure to comply aforesaid order of conversion.
3. Pass such further orders with cost and advocate fee from the stage of legal notice.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant is the w/o late.Gururaja Bhat U.L., and she is the legal heir of her husband.  The husband of the complainant died on 18.07.2022 and after his death she has filed this complaint. The OP1 is the developer under the name and style of Megacity Bangalore Developers and builders and OP2 is the Director of the said company.  The OPs have introduced a housing scheme to develop residential layouts in vast areas of land called Vajragiri Township of Mysore Road Bangalore, to allot and sell house sites to the general public who became the members of the scheme and made payment of sale consideration. 

3. The late husband of the complainant got attracted by the said housing scheme became the member of the OP to get the house site in C Block of their proposed layout.  The complainant has paid the full cost of the site and other charges.  However the OPs have not executed registered sale deed in favour of the late husband of the complainant. Therefore the late husband of the complainant had to file compliant before the Hon’ble Consumer Commission I Addl DCDRC, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore, in CC No.478/2008, which was allowed by order dated 07.07.2008. After that the OP had preferred an appeal vide Appeal No.1554/2008, before the Hon’ble State Commission, which was disposed off by order dated 08.08.2008.  Thereafter the complainant filed Revision Petition No.4628/2008, in combined revision petition No.4615-39/2008 before the Hon’ble National Commission which was allowed. Thereafter the complainant has filed an Execution petition No.95/2009 before the I Addl DCDRC, Bangalore.
4. During the proceedings before the Hon’ble Consumer Commission, the OPs have no approvals from the competent authorities to form site in C Block and offered sites to the complainant in A-I Block, stating that they have proper approvals from this block. Accordingly they were directed to execute the sale deeds in A-I Block.  As per the orders of the Hon’ble DCDRC the OPs have executed a sale deed dated 29.07.2010 with respect to residential site No.63 in E Block, measuring 30X40 feet, totally measuring 1200 sq. feet, situated at Sheshagirihalli, Ramanagara Taluk and district.
5. It is further case of the complainant that the OPs arranged to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant by getting the land converted and also after plan sanctioned from BMICAPA for formation of residential layout in Survey numbers of Sheshagiri Village. The order of approval of formation of residential layout in BMICAPA is subject to compliance of the various terms and conditions imposed in the order.
6. It is further case of the complainant that the OP has to comply the terms and conditions as per the order of BMICAPA by constructing the roads, drainage system, facilities for drinking water, providing electricity, sewage treatment plan and also surrendering the areas of the road, park and other civic amenities area to the concerned panchayath.  The OPs after executing the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant required to develop the layout as per the terms and conditions but OP failed to develop the layout. Now the said site is unfit for human habitation.  OPs have not at all provided any road  or any facility for drinking water, electricity sewage treatment plant etc., in view of the same the land owners in the area used to carry out the agricultural operations in the said layout.  After receiving the entire sale consideration the OPs have not shown any interest to develop the area.
7. The late husband of the complainant has approached the OP on several times and requesting to develop the surrounding area and to provide all the aforesaid civic amenities which are basic requirement to construct the house in the site registered. The OP has not responded to her request and also not provided the civic amenities.  The OPs have not handed over the possession in respect of site in favour of the late husband of the complainant for construction of the building.  Hence the complainant got issued legal notice on 28.08.2021. Even after received the legal notice the OPs have not complied the demands of the late husband of the complainant and they have not given any reply. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint.
8. In response to the notice, OPs appeared and files version. It is the case of the OPs that it is a registered company registered under the companies Act. They have further admitted that they had executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant as per the order of the I Addl, DCDRC, Bangalore. The late husband of the complainant after collected all the original title deed in respect of the site in land situated at Sheshagiri Halli, and accordingly he was put in possession and enjoyment of the said site on the same day.
9. It is further case of the OPs that the complainant after obtained the sale deed has become the absolute owner of the said sites the complainant has acquired site No.63, in A-1 Block measuring 1200 sq.feet by virtue of the sale deed.  The khata was also transferred in the name of the late husband of the complainant and he has paid the tax and the complainant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 12 years.  The prayer made by the complainant is frivolous and vexatious and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. 
10. It is further case of the OPs that the complainant got issued legal notice on 28.08.2021 seeking for civic amenities after the period of 12 years of execution of the sale deed clearly evidences the facts none use of the roads and civic amenities and the same might have been damaged due to time.  After lapse of 12 years of execution of the sale deed the late husband of the complainant being a resident has to verify the actual particulars at the time of execution of the sale deeds.  The OPs provided all civic amenities along with the roads and the complainant has physically verified and after duly satisfied about the title of the property as well as physical nature of the property come forward to get the sale deed.  Now the complainant taking untenable grounds at this belated stage which is not only time barred but also without any material evidence on record.
11. The OP has denied all the other allegations made in the complaint except the fact that the late husband of the complainant has purchased the site under the registered sale deed on 29.07.2010 and he was put in possession of the property on the same day.  The late husband of the complainant has taken possession of the site only after verifying the title deeds and also the civic amenities and roads etc., formed by the OPs in the layout.  When the late husband of the complainant has got the registered sale deed they are bound by the terms of the sale deed only. This OPs have comply with all the terms and conditions and provided all civic amenities the complainant has approached this commission after lapse of 12 years by raising untenable grounds.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation.  There is no question of deficiency of service on the part of these OPs. The complainant in order to pressurize these OPs for the purpose of fulfillment of his malafide intention of getting unjust enrichment has filed this complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 9 documents.  Affidavit evidence of one of the director of the OP company has been filed and OP relies on 13 documents.
13. Heard the arguments of both the parties.  Perused the written arguments filed by the OPs.
14. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

15. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

16. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken up for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of both the parties, written arguments of OPs and documents.
17. It is clear from the evidence and documents produced by both the parties that the OPs have executed the sale deed in favour of the late husband of the complainant as per Ex.P1 dated 29.07.2010 in respect of site bearing No.63 in A-1 Block, measuring 1200 sq. feet, situated at Sheshagiri Halli, which is duly converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. Ex.P2 is the Copy of the death certificate of the husband of the complainant, Ex.P3 is the copy of the aadhar card of the complainant, Ex.P4 is the copy of the conditional order of conversion, dated 20.07.1998,  Ex.P5 is the copy of the order dated 20.01.2003 of approval of layout plan by BMICAPA Ex.P6 is the copies of letter and endorsement, Ex.P7 is the photos of the Layout, Ex.P8 & 9 are the Legal notice, and the copies of acknowledgements.
18. The main grievance of the complainant is that after execution of the sale deed the OP has not at all delivered possession of the said site.  The OP has undertaken to develop the layout by forming roads, drainage system and also providing facilities for drinking water and sewage treatment plan and also parks and other civic amenities.  The OP has failed to develop the layout as per the conditions imposed by the BMICAPA at the time of conversion of the land. The OPs have not shown any interest to develop the area, fit for construction of dwelling house in the said area and it clearly amounts to deficiency of service.
19. On the other hand, in order to prove their contention one of the director of the OP company has filed their affidavit and also relied on Ex.R1 to R13. The main contention taken by the OP is that they have executed the registered sale deed in favour of the late husband of the complainant as per Ex.P1 and put the late husband of the complainant in possession of the said site.  The late husband of the complainant has physically verified about the title documents and also visited the spot and verified about the formation of road and all other civic amenities.  Now the complainant has issued the legal notice on 28.08.2021 seeking for civic amenities after lapse of 12 years of execution of sale deed.
20. It is further contention taken by the OPs that the none use of the road and civic amenities and the same might have been damaged due to passing of time. The complainant being a resident has verified actual particulars at the time of execution of the sale deeds about the civic amenities provided by these OPs along with the roads. After duly satisfied with the civic amenities and also title the late husband of the complainant has come forward to purchase the site and he has purchased the site.  The very complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time as she filed this complaint after lapse of 12 years after getting the registered sale deed in her name.
21. In support of their contention the OPs have produced the copy of the reply notice as Ex.R1 is the power sanction certificate, Ex.R2 is the copy of the magazine for formation of layout. Ex.R3 is the contract certificate for supplying of 20mm jelly and 40 mm jelly boulders and size stone bill voucher receipt and cash bill, Ex.R4 is the certificate for supplying of sand, Ex.R5 is the certificate for storm water drainage water construction, Ex.R6 is the copy of the proforma invoice quotation, Ex.R7 is the certificate for bridge construction Ex.R8 is the copy of the order passed by the I Addl DCDRC, Bangalore, Ex.R9 is the Copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal, Ex.R.10 is the copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Revision Petition, Ex.R11  is the order passed by the III Addl. DCDRC in CC No.3281/2006  Ex.R12 is the demand registered issued by the Manchanayakanahalli Grama Panchayath, Ex.R13 is the board resolution passed by OP company,
22. After going through all the documents produced by both the parties it is clear that the late husband of the complainant has purchased the site from the OPs in the year 2010 itself.  The documents produced by the OPs as per Ex.R1 to R12 clearly discloses that the OPs have spent sufficient amount for purchase of the materials for formation of the road and also for providing electricity connection and for supply of electricity connection.  The OPs have also produced the demand register extract to show that the site purchaser in the said layout have got the khata in their names from the Manchanayakanahalli village panchayath and they were paying the taxes. 
23. It is pertinent to note here that the complainant has raised the questions in the interrogatories and the OPs have also given proper reply to the said interrogatories. 
24. The complainant has filed this complaint after lapse of 12 years after obtaining the registered sale deed as per Ex.P1 in respect of the site from the OPs.  When the late husband of the complainant has obtained the registered sale deed it is presumed that the possession was handed over to the late husband of the complainant and the late husband of the complainant has obtained the sale deed after satisfied with the title and the amenities given by the OPs.  If the late husband of the complainant is not at all satisfied with the title or the amenities given by the complainant, nothing prevented him from approaching this commission by filing the complaint within two years after getting the sale deed in his favour. 
25. The complainant has also raised doubt in respect of the title of the said land of the OP.  The complainant cannot raise the question of title before this commission after obtaining the sale deed in the year 2010 itself.  The contention taken by the complainant is that the site registered in his favour as per Ex.P1 is not at all in existence and the OPs have to deliver the possession of the site in her favour by providing all civic amenities. The documents produced by the OPs clearly discloses that they have provided all the civic amenities before executing the sale deed in favour of the late husband of the complainant.  When the late husband of the complainant has obtained the registered sale deed it is presumed that the possession of the said site was delivered in favour of the late husband of the complainant on the date of execution of the sale deed itself. The schedule and measurement of the site clearly mentioned in the sale deed in Ex.P1. If really the property is not at all in existence, the late husband of the complainant would not have purchased the site from the OPs after paying the entire sale consideration amount. 
26. It is the duty of the complainant to maintain the site by taking all precautionary measures. If the strangers have entered the layout and destroy the civic amenities provided by the OPs and also remove the boundary stones and using the land for agricultural purposes. The OPs are not responsible for the said damages caused by the third party. This commission cannot direct the OPs to again provide all the civic amenities after lapse of 12 years after purchase of site by the complainant. Hence the relief claimed by the complainant cannot be granted.
27. This commission can direct the OPs to provide the civic amenities in a case where the layout and sites are in existence. When there is a genuine doubt regarding the existence of the site and layout, this commission cannot direct the OPs to provide the alternative site or refund of the amount or to provide basic civic amenities to the complainant who obtained the registered sale deed in the year 2010 itself. Under these circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable.  If the property is not at all in existence this commission has no jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed and to direct the OPs to refund the amount in favour of the complainant. The complainant has to approach the proper civil court for the said relief.  Hence we answer point No.1 and point No.2 in the Negative.
28. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed. No costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 07^TH day of NOVEMBER 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;