Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1558/2023

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. S. SATHYESH - Opp.Party(s)

G.B. SHARATH GOWDA

13 Dec 2023

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/1558/2023
( Date of Filing : 04 Aug 2023 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/03/2023 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/313/2018 of District Mysore)
 
1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OFFICE AT JLB ROAD MYSORE-570005
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MR. S. SATHYESH
S/O SRIKANTA JOIS, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13, BLOCK NO.22, MADHUVANA LAYOUT, SRI RAMPURA, 2ND STAGE, MYSORE-570023.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 13 Dec 2023
Final Order / Judgement

 

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

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.