BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 131/2009 against C.C. 25/2008 , Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
1) Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd.
Rep. by its Branch Manager
Pasumalai Complex, 5/1 Arundelpet
Guntur.
2) The Chairman & Managing Director
Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd.
2nd Floor, Vamsi Estates, Ameerpet
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/OPs
And
Polavarapu Kamala
W/o. Polavarapu Subba Rao
Age: 56 years, H.No. 8-465 (12)
Nirmal Nagar, 3rd Line,
Ongole, Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
F.A. 132/2009 against C.C. 26/2008 , Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
1) Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd.
Rep. by its Branch Manager
Pasumalai Complex, 5/1 Arundelpet
Guntur.
2) The Chairman & Managing Director
Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd.
2nd Floor, Vamsi Estates, Ameerpet
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/OPs
And
Nalluri Venkateswarlu
S/o. Pitchaiah, Age: 36 years
C/o. M. Ravindra
H.No. 20-7-3, Lambadi Donka
Ongole, Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
F.A. 133/2009 against C.C. 27/2008 , Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
1) Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd.
Rep. by its Branch Manager
Pasumalai Complex, 5/1 Arundelpet
Guntur.
2) The Chairman & Managing Director
Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd.
2nd Floor, Vamsi Estates, Ameerpet
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/OPs
And
Pothula Gangamma
W/o. Subba Rao, Age: 52 years
House Wife, R/o. Nandipadu (V)
Maddipadu (M)
Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
F.A. 134/2009 against C.C. 28/2008 , Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
1) Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd.
Rep. by its Branch Manager
Pasumalai Complex, 5/1 Arundelpet
Guntur.
2) The Chairman & Managing Director
Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd.
2nd Floor, Vamsi Estates, Ameerpet
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/OPs
And
Patibandla Sreedevi
W/o. Mallikarjuna Rao
Age: 32 years, Housewife
R/o. Sujathanagar
Near Police Quarters
Ongole, Prakasham Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Srinivas Swarup.
Counsel for the Respondents: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) These appeals are preferred by the opposite party developer against the order of the Dist. Forum in fixing Rs. 50/- per sq.yd towards development charges as against Rs. 200/- per sq.yd claimed by it.
2) Since all these appeals pertain to the question as to the rate at which development charges are to be fixed, we are of the opinion that they can be disposed of by a common order.
3) The facts lie in a narrow compass:
The complainants joined as members in the venture floated by the appellant wherein it was agreed to sell house plots consisting of 200 sq.yds. for Rs. 1, 30,000/- each. They paid the entire consideration. When the appellants demanded more money towards development charges on the ground that rates that they have spent towards development of roads, infrastructure etc., the complainants filed complaints directing the appellant developers to register the plots in their name besides compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.
4) The appellants resisted the case. While admitting that they had allotted 200 sq.yds of plot for Rs. 1,30,000/- however as per clause-12 of the terms and conditions the complainants had to pay development charges fixed by it together with registration charges. In fact they had cleared the jungles to make suitable for laying plots, fee payable to the Government for obtaining approval, material cost for laying of plot stones and colours, fee payable to the engineers for survey and plotting, expenditure for mortgage of land to UDA, fee payable for handing over of roads and open sites to Panchayat, expenditure for tree plantation to the satisfaction of UDA, expenditure for arranging side canals, maintenance of layout till registration etc. They spent an amount of Rs. 200/- towards development charges for each sq.yd, and Rs. 50/- towards other charges. They were ready and willing to execute the sale deed provided they paid the development charges, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavits evidence and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked, while the appellants filed the affidavit evidence of its In-charge Branch Head P. Seshagiri Rao and got Exs. B1 & B2 marked.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that an amount of Rs. 50/- per sq.yd could be fixed towards development charges in the light of development work made by the appellants besides registration charges for getting the plots registered in their names.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants preferred these appeals contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have awarded Rs. 200/- per sq.yd as claimed by it.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the appellants had floated a venture wherein it had agreed to sell house plots consisting of 200 sq.yds each at Rs. 1,30,000/-. The fact that the plots were developed after getting it approved from various authorities and were sold at Rs. 1,30,000/- each in the year 2005. The pass books filed by the complainants wherein terms and conditions were mentioned. Clause-12 stipulates that the complainants had to pay additional fee towards development charges viz. fee payable to UDA, laying of roads, providing side canals etc., besides registration charges. The fact that the complainant had paid entire sale consideration of Rs. 1, 30,000/- was not in dispute. When the appellants claimed Rs. 200/- per sq.yd towards development charges the complainants resisted stating that it was on higher side. The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that an amount of Rs. 50/- per sq.yd could be assessed towards development charges and directed the complainants to pay accordingly.
10) The learned counsel for the appellants relied a decision of this Commission in F.A. No. 145/2007 Dt. 23.9.2008 wherein the development charges at Rs. 160/- per sq.yd was fixed. After considering the documentary evidence and the similar venture floated by the appellants an amount of Rs. 160/- was fixed directing them to pay Rs. 32,000/- towards development charges besides registration charges. No doubt the appellant being a registered company which had floated this venture must have maintained the accounts in order to show the amount that has been spent under this head in order to distribute the same on prorata basis. Equally the complainants did not file any document in order to find out as to the exact amount that could have been spent by the appellant for obtaining permissions from various authorities, and the amount spent towards development of plots. At any rate, the said fact could be within the knowledge of the appellant. It ought to have filed documentary evidence to fix the amount spent towards development. A perusal of the judgment relied by the appellant would show that this Commission by virtue of document Ex. B3 fixed the development charges at Rs. 160/- per sq.yd. taking into consideration that the plots consisting of 200 sq.yds were sold at Rs. 1,60,000/-. We do not want to deviate from the earlier order passed by this Commission lest it would lead to un-necessary complications and multiplicity of proceedings, and it would discriminate from one case to other. Applying the very same yard stick, as this Commission had fixed at Rs. 160/- per sq.yd for an amount of Rs. 1, 60,000/-. We are of the opinion that for a sale consideration of Rs. 1, 30,000/- an amount of Rs. 130/- per sq.yd could be fixed . Therefore they could have to pay Rs. 26,000/- each. In other words they are directed to pay Rs. 26,000/- towards development charges for 200 sq.yds of site which we feel reasonable and modest.
11) In the result the appeals are allowed in part and the orders of the Dist. Forum are modified. The appellants are directed to register the plots in favour of the complainants and the complainants in turn are directed to pay development charges at Rs. 26,000/- besides bearing registration charges at the time of registration. The complainants are directed to pay the said amount to the appellants within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the circumstances no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr Dt. 20. 07. 2010.
‘UP LOAD – O.K.”
