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

C.C.20/2008

Between:

Mr.M.V.Bhaskar Rao,

S/o M.Appa Rao,

Aged about 55 years,

Occ:business,

R/o Hyderabad                                                                                                                     … Complainant

            And

Counsel for the Appellants      :    M/s. P.Raja Sripathi Rao.

Counsel for Opposite Parties   :    M/s. D.Venkat Reddy

Coram :

Sri Syed Abdullah      ....                Hon’ble Member

                                                                               And

Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao          .…    Hon’ble Member

Wednesday, the Tenth Day of November, Two Thousand Ten

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

* *  *

This complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to obtain necessary permission and sanction from the competent authorities in respect of plot no.71 (new plot no.70) admeasuring 300 sq. yards in phase : at Roling Meadows, in Sy. No. 50, at serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and to register the same in favour of the complainant or his nominee without demanding any additional charges, i.e., developmental, maintenance and ULC consequently to hand over peaceful possession of the same, to award Rs.5 lakhs for mental agony  suffered and costs of Rs.20,000/-. According to the complainant, the opposite party has developed house plots situated at Madeenaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and he offered to sell the same in the above said venture on payment of installments or on lumpsum payment. He stated that the lay outs are approved lay-outs and the competent authorities have permitted to develop it. On the basis of the offer, the complainant joined in the venture.  He paid membership fee and also paid advance payment of Rs. One lakh through cheques on different dates.  The opposite parties addressed a letter dated 29.11.1997 on allotment of plot no.71 to the extent of 300 Sq.Yards and the total cost is mentioned as Rs.3,15,000/-.  A statement dated 18.11.97 was also sent by the opposite party.  The total cost of Rs.3,15,000/- was paid which was acknowledgment by the opposite party. Subsequently malafied intention the opposite parties have became to claim additional amounts under the caption of additional developmental charges to a tune of Rs.60,000/- which the complainant is not liable to pay the same.  There was no contract for payment of the same.  However, the opposite parties are trying to extract money. The opposite parties demanded additional amount of Rs.3 lakhs excluding the registration charge for registration of the plot.  The act or omission amounts of deficiency in service.

The opposite part No.1 (OP.No.1) filed counter and Opposite party No.2 (OP 2) adopted the same denying the allegations of deficiency in service as alleged.  It is stated that the complainant submitted an application on 14.11.1997 for allotment of one plot in the “Tolling Meadows” for which he was allotted plot No.71 admeasuring 300 sq. Yards  and the cost of the plot was agreed at Rs.3,15,000/-.  The complainant had paid Rs.29,500/- before allotment.  The complainant preferred to pay in installments @ Rs.6,000/- per month for 36 months by January, 2008. It is denied that the opposite parties assured that the layout was an approved one.  Condition no. 10 of the terms and conditions  clearly mentions that plots will be registered after final sanction of lay out of HUDA.  The complainant was behind schedule by 7 months in paying the monthly installments.  The delay was informed Plots were allotted subject to the condition that plots would be registered after final sanction of layout.  The total cost of the allotted plot is including the developmental charges but they were estimated long ago at the time of allotment of plots and the cost of the development work was increased due to Governmental Departments like HUDA, AP State Housing Board, boosted the cost of the land in and around and twin cities by putting few pieces of land to have an auction.  Further, other factors like cost of cement, labour and other infrastructure have increased.  Apart from it, additional developmental works taken up by the first opposite party as per the direction of the HUDA which were not in the original developmental works.  An elaborate rain harvesting network was created to ensure recharging of ground water levels, landscaping of parks was carried out by qualified and experienced horticulturists around the clock safety arrangements were made.  As such an amount of Rs.60,000/- @Rs.50/- per sq.yard is increased on each plot towards additional development charges. The complainant has not paid additional development charges of Rs.60,000/-.  Regarding sanction of lay – out by HUDA, while pursuing for final sanction of layout the Opposite parties received the intimation that they layout was finally sanctioned. Before receiving sanction from the HUDA informed to its members. But later the HUDA required the OP to get ULC clearance.  Local news papers published that HUDA did not approve final sanction to the project.  Latest hurdle in obtaining the final sanction layout is from the ULC authorities claiming the land in the layout ceiling surplus.   The ULC served a notice on the OP to surrender the land to the Government. The land changed number of hands by the time the op purchased the land.  The ULC Act of 1976 was not originally applicable to theses lands of the layout. Subsequently during 1980, I though a G.O. the A.P.State Government included the village of Madinaguda in the Urban agglomeration making ULC applicable to these lands.  However, during 1989, GO 733 had relaxed the norms of urban land holding in the peripheral area to 8 acre per person.  By 1989, the land holdings were fragmented and the lands in the layout were held by 12 persons.  Hence they are not attracted by the provisions of ULC Act of 1976 and are not required to submit any declaration and seek exemption.  But due to the notice of the ULC, the OP beling the interested to contest the before the ULC authorities or to get the lands regularized on payments to the Government.  The OP engaged professional lawyers to deal with the matter as it involves as lot of importance.  It costs a lot of expenditure.  After clearing the ULC hurdle, the OP has to obtain the final sanction layout.  After explaining all the issues involved, the OP requested the complainant and other allottees to deposit an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- per plot towards the ULC charges and for other incidental charges which could not be foreseen earlier.  If the problem of ULC is not dealt with properly, the lands in the layout would be vests with the Government.  All these things are explained to the complainant by various letters dated 02.06.2007, 28.06.2007 and 07.09.2007.  The Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, passed orders on 30.07.2007 in proceedings No.H2/151/94 to 153/94 directing the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to esume the land to the government declaring the lands are vested with the Government.  The plots of the subject matter of this complaint form part of those lands.  The plots of the subject matter of this complaint form part of those lands.  Against the said orders, the appeals were filed before the Chief Commissioner of land Administration, AP in a batch of appeal cases Nos. Hyd/89/2007 to Hyd/89/2007, Hyd/91/2007, Hyd/96 to 99/2007, Hyd/113 to 119/2007.  Hyd/50/2008, Hyd/99/2008, before the CCLA who passed orders on 24.03.2008 setting aside the orders of the special officer dated 30.07.2007 and remanded the matter to the Special Officer for fresh computation of the matter and for orders. The complainant did not deposit even after several requests. Since there was no response from him the plot allotment was cancelled on being refunded the amount.  There is no deficiency in service on their part and thereby prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

Along with the evidence affidavits, both sides have filed Ex.A-1 to A11 and Ex.B – 1, to B9  respectively.

Points for consideration are,

(1)    Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

(2)    Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?

Ex.A-1 is the application form contains terms and conditions in which details are given with regard to mode of payment and as well the extent of the land allotted to the complainant mentioning the rate per square yard.  Condition no.10 in Ex.A-1 is to the effect that plots will be registered after final sanction of lay – out by HUDA and receipt of completer payments from members.  Condition No. 7 also stipulates that “ in case of default, the company reserves the right to cancel allotment of the plot (s) and refund he advance deposit amount standing to the credit of the member, after deducting service charges of Rs.5,000/-.  From Ex.A2 and A3 documents issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant, it reveals that on 18.11.97 a sum of Rs.2,85,500/- was due, Ex.A-5 was issued in july, 2001 showing time schedule for payment of the amounts by the complainant in the subsequent letter under Ex.A-6 date 24.08.2001, it shows that the complainant had paid Rs.3,15,000/- and balance due was only Rs.4,162/- Subsequently in Ex.A-7 letter the first opposite party appraised to the complainant that the registration charges worked out to Rs.150/- per square yard, i.e, Rs.45,000/- for a plot of 300 square yards.  Again on 26.04.2004, the opposite party informed to the complainant that additional development charges @ Rs.50/- per square yard amounting to Rs.15,000/-along with the registration charges are to be paid.  Thereafter, again on 09.05.2007, the opposite party sent Ex.A9 to the complainant informing that the delay has been caused in getting sanction of electricity by APSEB carrying out additional developments like widening of roads and for laying down under ground water reservoir for which huge cost was incurred.  Another letter dated 05.05.2007 was sent by the opposite parties informing that besides cost of the plot of Rs.3,15,000/- that was already paid, additional development charges of Rs.60,000/- an registration charges of Rs.3 lakhs to be paid along with interest at Rs.4,162/-.  The very same documents filed by the complainant are also filed by the opposite parties besides proceedings of the ULC authority and the orders of the CCLA covered by Ex.A-8 and A-9.  The complainant had sought the relief to direct the opposite parties to obtain necessary sanction from a competent authority in respect of the plot allotted to him and by executing a sale deed.

The opposite parties have expired in detail as to the factors which came in the way in obtaining necessary sanction and in support of it has filed proceedings issued by the concerned authorities.

At the outset, it can be said that the ULC is under consideration and the matter has not been finalized.  Even otherwise, as per condition no.10 in Ex.A-1 itself has made it clear that plots will be registered after final sanction of lay out by HUDA and on full payment the purchaser is required to make all necessary enquiries with regard to the title in respect of the land and then entered into the transaction.  No doubt, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- which is inclusive of the developmental charges as agreed upon.  But unless necessary sanction is obtained from the competent authority, the opposite parties are not in a position to execute any sale deed at all.  Whatever may be the amount demanded by the ULC for clearance of the lands both the seller or purchaser cannot waive it.  The purchaser cannot escape from payment of ULC charges.  Even though, the cost of the land was already paid when a large chunk of land has been developed, it necessarily involves huge infrastructure and all persons who joined as members in the project are required to share the burden of it.  In case, the complainant is unable to wait for a long time an pay additional developmental charges he may seek for refund of the amount.  The first opposite party itself has stated that on account of default in payment of monthly installments and there was a delay of 7 months in payment of the regular installments, the allotment was cancelled and steps being taken for refund of the amount. The relief sought by the complainant cannot be granted unless necessary sanction is given by ULC and as well by HUDA for the seller and purchasers.  The sanction depends upon various factors. If the land is declared as excess land, there is a remote chance of getting lay out sanction from the competent authorities and hence the relief claimed by the complainant cannot be ordered.  However, he is entitled to claim for refund of the amount paid by him with interest there on at 9% p.a from the date of respective payments till the date of realization.

In the result the complaint is disposed of with the following direction: That the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought for but he is entitled to seek for refund of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest there on at 9% pas from the respective dates of payment till realization.  Each party to bear its own costs.

     MEMBER

     MEMBER

DATED: 10.11.2010.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant                                                               :                               none

For Opposite Parties                                                       :                               none

For Complainant:

For Opposite Parties:

     MEMBER

     MEMBER

DATED: 10.11.2010