No. 23/09.12.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Complainants through Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate, O.P. No. 1 through Mr. Pannalal Bandhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. No. 9 in person are present.  Mr. Susandip Pathak, the Ld. Advocate enters appearance on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 10 and files Vokalatnama.  Heard the Ld. Advocates.  On the last date of hearing the parties agreed that the matter can be settled by delivery of possession of the respective flats to the Complainants as also to the land owners who did not get the possession in the meantime as also the land owners being O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 10 who were having a dispute with the developers.  The Bench was satisfied that in respect of the said alleged dispute between the said O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 10 with the developer was not taken in a proceeding and the said O.Ps did not initiate any proceeding for the purpose of getting possession.  It appeared before us that the said dispute was a mock dispute and was being taken shelter to deprive the Complainants of their rights in respect of five flats purchased by them.  It appeared that in view of the objection by O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 10 the Complainants suffered.

In view of such settlement the possession of the respective flats were given by the developer to the Complainants, O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 10.  It is also taken note of the fact that O.P. No. 9 was entitled to a flat jointly with O.P. No. 6 and, therefore, the O.P. No. 9 also suffered though she herself was not responsible for the said delay and the consequent litigation.

After the delivery of possession today the O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 10 appeared and advanced argument through a different Ld. Advocate.    Mr. Pathak, the new Ld. Advocate has not been instructed as regards the settlement already arrived and he wanted to contend that his clients are having contention against the developer and, therefore, are not liable to pay compensation.  The Bench was surprised as the matter was really finalised on the last occasion on settlement and order was to be passed today on satisfaction of the terms as was orally agreed to and submitted to this Bench.

We find that O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 10 have raised dispute but did not file litigation against the developer.  When the delivery of possession of the flat was considered they expressed agreement to the terms by paying compensation to the present Complainants.  Today they appeared and though admitted that they have taken possession of the flat in terms of the said settlement but wanted to raise dispute.  On being questioned by the Bench whether they are agreeable to give back possession of the flat to the developer to enable them advance contention, the said O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 10 advanced an argument that they would deliver possession to the developer and will file litigation before a civil suit.  This shows the conduct of the said O.Ps and that they are really litigant by nature and after taking advantage of the settlement are trying to get out of the same only taking advantage of the situation that no formal settlement has been recorded though all the parties present are admitting even today that there was a settlement which is being supported by the fact that possession of the disputed flats have been given by the developer to the respective parties in terms of settlement.

In terms of the said settlement possession having been given, the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 10 are to pay compensation as other O.Ps got possession beforehand and are not responsible for the dispute.  Out of O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 10 those who pay today compensation to the Complainants are to pay Rs. 10,000/- each, being the reduced amount as agreed to and the rest are to pay Rs. 30,000/- each to the Complainants as was assessed and agreed already. 

In the circumstances we dispose of the present complaint on the terms of the settlement and we record that on delivery of possession of the flats to the Complainants and to the O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6, 9 & 10 the matter is settled among the parties.  The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 makes payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Mr. Prasad, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainants, the amount which was decided amongst the parties on understanding if the payment is made on this day the amount will be less than appropriate amount which was assessed at Rs. 30,000/- on the last occasion.  The O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 10 having not paid today are to pay Rs. 30,000/- each to the Complainants within a period of 60 days from the date of this order and in case the said payment is not made the Complainants will be entitled to recover in accordance with law along with interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default.  Complaint is allowed to the aforesaid extent.