BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ATHYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 1056 

Between

Prakash Vikas Raheja
S/o Late Bhagawandas Raheja
Aged about 54 years, occ: Business
R/o 5-5-161/2, Ranigunj
Secunderabad

M/s Narne Estates Private Limited
01, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad
rep. by its G.M.Narne Ranga Rao

Counsel for the Appellant            

Counsel for the Respondent

 QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
          1.     

2.     `37,000/-.   

3.    

4.    

5.    

1)               Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

2)               To what relief?

6.              

7.        

8.    `220/- per sq.yd but there was no basis to come to the conclusion that`220/- per sq.yd can be assessed as the estimated development charges. `100/- per sq.yd. `150/- per sq. yard, made by the opposite party under Ex.B5 cannot be made a platform to assess the development charges particularly for the reason that the opposite party has not come up with any sort of evidence in this regard. 

9.         

10.   Manpreet Kaur Vs. Vice Chairman Meerut Development Authority and others reported in CPR (NC) 2 (2010) 343” wherein refund of the amount received by the opposite party towards plot cost with interest was held to be justified by the Hon’ble National Commission.   

11.            

KMK*