A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.879/2009 against C.C.No.664/2008 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad.

Between:

M/s. Narne Estates (p) Ltd

Rep. by its Director,

Col. Narne Ranga Rao,

Office at No.1, Gunrock Enclave,

Karkhana, Secunderabad – 500 009.                                     

… Appellant/opposite party

                   And

R.Koushik, S/o. L.Prasad,

Aged : 42 years, Occ; Architect,

R/o. 10-1-544, East Maredpally,

Main Raod, Secunderabad                                                  

 … Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                 :          Mr.D.Venkat Reddy        

Counsel for the Respondent              :           Mr.G.Parashuram.     

Coram       :   Sri Syed Abdullah                                          … Hon’ble Member

And

          Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao                         … Hon’ble Member

Wednesday, the Twenty Sixth day of May, Two thousand Ten

Oral Order :  (as per Sri Syed Abdullah,  Hon’ble Member)

******

The appellant is the unsuccessful OP in CC 664/2008 before the District Forum II, Hyderabad where under the appellant / OP was directed to register two plots bearing No. 17 and 18 admeasuring 500 Sq. Yards in Block No. N, in Sector IV of East city, which were allotted to the respondent/ complainant after receiving registration charges within two months with costs of Rs.1000/-.  Questioning the propriety and legality of the order, this appeal is filed to set aside the impugned order as erroneous and not sustainable.

The facts as stated in the case disclose that the OP advertisement for sale of plots in East City, B.B.Nagar, Nalgonda district and on that the complainant became a member of the scheme and he was given membership no. 8528. Pursuant there to be booked two plots whish the allotted to him for which a sum of Rs.6150/- was paid initially as advance.  Again, a sum of Rs. 26,550/- was paid for which a receipt was given for it. The complaint being an architect have full knowledge of lay out of the lands and so also the conversion of the land as non-agricultural land for which a sanction of  Director of Town and country planning is required.  The development has to be done only after obtaining sanction from the concerned for developing as residential plots.  The OP has informed the complainant to pay the development charges whenever the land is developed.  Subsequently the complainant was never informed about the taking up of the work for development of the plots. The complaint was enquiring on phone and also by visiting OPs office.  The complainant also requested the OP to register the plot since full consideration of the value was paid.  The complainant lost hopes as OP was not presiding with the developmental works.  No intimation was sent all the while by the OP however a letter dt. 14.11.2007 was sent along with a cheque towards part of the sale price paid by the complainant.  The complainant sent a reply dt.06.12.2007 questioning the act or omission, OP again sent a letter dt.15.12.2007 along with a cheque.  The complainant was put to hardship and mental agony by the act of OP. As the land value had increased the OP became greedy, so he tried to avoid to register the plots on some pretext or the other.  The act or mission amounts to deficiency in service and so sought direction against OP to register the plots allotted along with compensation of Rs. One lakh.

The OP filed its counter denying the allegations, however admitted allotment of two plots 17 and 18 admeasuring 500 sq. yards in block N in sector IV of the East City residential development project at Bibinagar, Nalgonda District. Further it is stated that allottees should pay development charges as and when developmental work commences.  Allotment of plot is not an out right sale.  The developmental work commences.  Allotment of plot is not an out right sale.  The development work was commenced in the month of September, 99 which was informed by sending circulars to all the parties requesting to pay @ 100 per sq. yard by monthly installments at Rs.750/- per plot of 250 sq. Yards.  But the complainant filed to pay the amount.  So a letter dated 16.12.95 was sent, without completing the completing the development works, there cannot be any approval of the layout from the town planning.  Clause 10 of the agreement makes it clear about the payment of development charges.  Due to non payment, the OP was put to trouble in developing an extent of 1500 acres.  Further through a letter dt 12.7.96 OP had informed to the complainant that the extent of plot no. 18 is increased by 60 sq.yards and the differential amount has to be paid @ 560/- per Sq.yard.  So also he was asked to pay development charges of Rs.56,000/-.  Subsequently various letters dt 25.10.2007, 30.06.1999, 15.06.2000, 19.11.2000, 20.06.2002, 05.11.2003, 10.12.2003, 02.04.2004, 06.08.2004 and 30.10.2004,hw was requested to pay development charges.  For every three years the development charges increased. Though complainant received the said letters but failed to make payments.  After waiting for 13 long years OP had cancelled the allotment.   During the enquiry before the District Forum the complainant along with the evidence affidavit had filed Ex. A1 to A5.  Similarly the OP along with evidence affidavit filed Ex. B1 to B17 in support of its contentions.

After going through the evidence the District forum came to the conclusion that when the complainant had paid the sale paid of the plot long back, OP has no right to cancel the plots on the ground of non payment of development Charges especially without commencing the development works at all. Therefore, directed the opposite party to register the plots and also to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-.

The strong hold contentions raised in the appeal grounds are that the complaint is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action to entertain it.    Further contended that the District Forum failed to appreciate that the development work was commenced long back in the year September,  1985 and the same was brought to the notice of the complainant and others informing them to pay the development charges which the complainant made deaf ear.  In view of the conditions under the agreement OP has right to cancel the allotment. 

The undisputed facts in the case are that the complainant was allotted with two plots and the cost of the land as fixed was paid long back in two installments and thereafter it is the obligation of the OP to develop the land after collecting development charges and then to proceed to register the sale deed on execution of it.  So the burden is on the appellant/OP to show when he had commenced the development work or that when he had obtained the necessary permission from the concerned authority, so also, to prove that the complainant and other members were duly informed for payment of the development charges.  Though the OP had filed Ex. B2, B3, B4 B6, B7, B8 and B9 and B10, B11, B12, B13  letters but the same are not supported by any acknowledgements to believe that the complainant had   knowledge of the same.  However, Ex. B – 16 is the reply dated 05.12.2007 sent by the complainant is which a reference is made to OP’s letter dated 14.11.2007 protesting for return of the sale price though there was no default on his part.  Once an allotment of plot is done by receiving full consideration of it, it is obligatory on the part of the developer of the land to execute a sale deed by collecting development charges.  The cause of action continues until the transaction is fulfilled.  There is no question of limitation at all.

For the reasons best known the appellant / OP has not filed any sanction letter obtained from the competent authority for development of plots in question.  Or any evidence is placed on record to show that on what date the development was commenced.  A purchaser is expected to know the details of the permissions obtained from the competent authorities in respect of the layouts.  In Ex. B17 letter the complainant has rightly raised objection that panchayat permission mentioned in his letter in invalid and permission from the Director of town planning or HUDA is required.  So it is the duty of the developer to convince or prove that the competent authorities have issued the sanction permission to develop the land for the purpose of layout.  In the absence of any acknowledgement of the complainants it cannot be accepted that the complainant was very much aware of the steps that were taken up by the OP.  All of a sudden the appellant / OP had refunded the sale price of the plots that were allotted to him which itself amounts to unfair trade practice as well deficiency in service in performing the legal obligation covered by the contract.  On a reappraisal of the evidence on record, we are of considered opinion that the District Forum on appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly directed the appellant/OP to execute a sale deed covered by the plots on payment of the registration miscellaneous charges. The impugned order does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity.  The appeal is devoid of merits.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  But in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.

MEMBER

                                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                                DATED:  26.05.2010.