<br /> <br /> <br /> Date of Filing: 21.02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 04.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 4th DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Smt. C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 509 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. P.N. Bhat,<br /> “Sowjanya” Shiva Bagh,<br /> 2nd Cross, Kadari,<br /> MANGALORE – 575 002. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 512 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. K.S. Narayanan,,<br /> B-2, Prakash Flat,<br /> No.20/37-A, Parangusapuram Street,<br /> Kodambakkam,<br /> CHENNAI – 600 024. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 516 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. V. Jayaramaiah,<br /> H.No.208/48, 1st Floor, 8th Cross,<br /> HMT Layout, Mathikere,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 054. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> - V/S -<br /> <br /> M/s. Megacity (Bangalore)<br /> Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Mega Towers, No.120, K.H. Road, <br /> BANGALORE – 560 027. <br /> - Rep by its M.D - …OPPOSITE PARTY<br /> <br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Since all these complaints involving common questions and claiming similar reliefs are directed against the same opposite party, they are disposed-off by this common order :-<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party proposed to form a residential layout called VAJRAGIRI TOWNSHIP on Mysore Road, Bangalore, and to sell the sites to the members of the scheme on payment of sital values in monthly installments. With intention to purchase a house site the complainants became members of the scheme, applied for site of a particular dimension made payment of certain amount. The dimension of the site applied for, the site allotted to the complainants and the amount paid by each complainant is as under:-<br /> <br /> Sl. No <br /> Case No. Dimension of the site applied <br /> Site allotted Amount paid<br /> 01 509/2008 60’ X 80’ No. 22 in ‘E’ Block 3,21,160/-<br /> 02 512/2008 40’ X 30’ No.214 in ‘E’ Block 66,000/-<br /> 03 516/2008 40’ X 60’ No.262 in ‘E’ Block 96,000/-<br /> <br /> 3. Inspite of payment of full sital value and inspite of repeated requests and demands the opposite party failed to execute registered sale deed in-favour of the complainants. The opposite party also did not respond to the legal Notice issued. Hence, these complaints for a direction to the opposite party to execute registered sale deed in-favour of each complainant in respect of the site allotted and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> 4. In the version among other grounds the opposite party has stated that Site No.22 in ‘E’ Block allotted in-favour of the complainant in Case No.509/2008 has been formed out of survey No.31/1 of Hampapura Village measuring One Acre, 18.5 Guntas. The opposite party entered in to an agreement with one Sri. Srirangashetty to purchase the land, the owner also executed Registered General Power of Attorney in-favour of one of the Directors of the Company empowering the Power of Attorney Holder to get the land converted for non-agricultural purposes. Accordingly, the land was got converted for non-agricultural purposes, the sale deeds were executed in-favour of the members of the Company as per the agreement and intimation was given to the allotties to get the sale deed executed, but the complainant did not come forward in time to get the sale deed executed. In the meanwhile the owner has sold the said land in-favour of Karnataka Housing Board and therefore the opposite party is contemplating to initiate legal proceedings against the vendors and it is in these circumstances the sale deed could not be executed in-favour of the complainant and in this regard the complainant himself is to be blamed.<br /> <br /> 5. In the other two cases the opposite party has contended that site No.214 allotted in-favour of the complainant in Case No.512/2008 & Site No.262 allotted in-favour of the complainant in Case No.516/2008 have been formed out of Survey No.34 of Hampapura Village, but when the land lord applied for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes the same was denied by the Revenue Department and thereafter the land lord also sold the same land in-favour of third party and therefore the Company is not in a position to execute sale deed. On these grounds the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaints and has stated that it is ready to refund the amount paid by the complainants with Bank Rate of Interest. <br /> <br /> 6. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments on both sides. <br /> <br /> <br /> 7. The points for consideration are :-<br /> (a) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in<br /> service on the part of the opposite party ?<br /> <br /> (b) Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed<br /> for in the respective complaints ?<br /> <br /> 8. Our findings are :-<br /> Point No.1:- In the affirmative,<br /> Point No.2:- As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 9. The fact that the complainants are the members of the scheme sponsored by the opposite parties, they applied for allotment of a site of particular dimension paid certain amount towards sital value and a particular site has been allotted to each complainant in ‘E’ Block of the layout is not denied. From the documents produced by complainant in Complaint No.509/2008, it is also seen that the complainant had purchased Demand Draft in the name of the Sub-Registrar, Kangeri, Bangalore, for the purpose of registration of sale deed. In the receipt dated: 04.10.2000 produced in Complaint No.512/2008 the amount payable towards installments and development charges is shown as ‘nil’. From the statement of account produced in Complaint No.516/2008 the opposite party has admitted for having received a total sum of Rs.1,01,816/- towards costs of the site as well as development charges. Therefore, it is clear that all the complainants have paid full amount towards sital value and inspite of it the opposite party failed to execute registered sale deed in-favour of each complainant in respect of the site allotted to him. This act of the opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service. If the opposite party sold the site formed out of Survey No.31/1 to other members, it is not explained why such service was not extended to the complainant in Case No.509/2008. Nothing is produced to support the contention of the opposite party that inspite of intimation the complainant did not come forward to get the sale deed executed. No material is produced to show that the land-owner has sold the said land in-favour of the third party. We are also unable to believe this contention that inspite the opposite party selling sites in-favour of its members in the said land the land-owner has sold the land to a third party. Nothing is also produced supporting the contention that conversion of Survey No.34 in Hampapura was refused by the Revenue Authorities and the land-owner has sold the said land in-favour of third party. On the contrary from the letter dated: 28.06.2000 & 06.08.2000 produced in Case No. 512/2008 it is seen that the opposite party assured registration of the site in ‘E’ Block in September-2001. In the letter 28.06.2000 the opposite party informed the complainant that action has been taken to obtain the approval of BMICAPA & Karnataka Pollution Control Board in addition to the approval already obtained from BMRDA and it may take a month or two to commence the registration. On the face of these letters addressed by the opposite party itself, we are unable to uphold the contention of the opposite party in the version that the Revenue Authorities refused conversion of survey No.34 of Hampapura Village for non-agricultural purposes or that the land-owner has sold the very same land to third parties. Thus it is, clear that without any reason the opposite party has denied execution of the sale deed in-favour of the complainants. As such the complainants are entitled to seek registration of the sale deeds in respect of the sites allotted from the opposite party. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 10. All the complaints are allowed. The opposite party is directed to execute registered sale deed in respect of the sites allotted in-favour of each complainant and shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to each complainant. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.<br /> <br /> 11. The Original of this Order shall be kept in Case No.509/2008 and a true copy of the Order shall be kept in each of the other cases.<br /> <br /> <br /> 12. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> <br /> 13. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 4th DAY OF JULY-2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />