This is a complaint made by Smt. Meera Banerjee, W/O Late Sunil Kr. Banerjee and Sri Sumit Banerjee, son of Late Sunil Kumar Banerjee, both residing at 351, Jodhpur Park, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-68 against (a) M/s. S. C. Builders, having its registered office at 168, Jodhpur Gardens, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-45 – OP No.1, (b) Sri Subal Chandra Halder, son of Late Makhan Halder, residing at 117/1B, Lake Terrace, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-29, - OP No.2, (c) Sri Chandan Ghosh, son of Lakshmi Narayan Ghosh, residing at 5/2A, Panditiya Road, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-29 – OP No.3 and Sri Sudip Banerjee, son of late Sunil Kumar Banerjee of 351, Jodhpur Park, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-68 – Proforma OP No.4, prayer for a direction upon the OP No.1 to 3 to pay the balance consideration amount to the tune of Rs.8,40,000/- with interest @ 10%p.a. from the date of signing of the agreement and to regularize the newly constructed building by removing the illegal construction and to handover Completion certificate within 7 days from the date of passing of the order and to direct the OPs No.1 to 3 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Sunil Kumar Banerjee since deceased husband of Complainant No.1 was the owner of all that piece and parcel of bastu land measuring about 2 Cottahs 4 chittaks 36 sq.ft. Complainant and OP No.4 entered into a development agreement with OP No.1 to 3 for development of the said land. As per the development agreement OP No.1 to 3 will construct a new building exclusively at their own cost and the Complainant and OP No.4 will get owners allocation one flat with covered area of 697 sq.ft. comprising of the entire first floor and cash consideration of Rs.9,40,000/- is to be paid by OP No.1 to 3 to the Complainant and proforma OP No.4. OP No.1 to 3 will complete the construction as per sanctioned plan of the KMC. They will take sanctioned plan and built a G+3 building, and OP No.1 to 3 will make the construction and deliver the possession of the developer’s allocation to the intending purchasers. But they did not handover the possession to the Complainant and the OP No.4. They did not pay the consideration money agreed. So, Complainants as well as proforma OP No.4 issued notice to the OP No.1 to 3. Accordingly, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 to 3 filed written version and denied the allegations of the Complaints. It is the contention of the OP No.1 to 3 they have already received Rs.9,40,000/- which is clear from the memo of consideration of the development agreement. They have further stated that other allegations are matter of record. So, OP No.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons :

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein they have asserted the facts mentioned in the complaint. They have denied that Complainant paid Rs.9,40,000/- as agreed.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainants are entitled to the reliefs for which they have prayed.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that first prayer is payment of Rs.8,40,000/- with interest of 10%p.a. from the date of signing of this agreement. In this regard as per the written version, OP No.1 to 3 have stated that they have already paid total amount. On perusal of the development agreement dated 17.1.2011, it appears that as per the memo of consideration Meera Banerjee, wife of late Sunil Kr. Banerjee, Sumit Banerjee and Sudip Banerjee has since received Rs.9,40,000/-, as such, the claim of the Complainants and proforma defendant does not appear to be fit, so that it cannot be allowed.

            Prayer (b) of the complaint petition is for regularizing the newly constructed building by removing the illegal construction and hand-over Completion Certificate to the Complainants within 7 days from the date of passing of the order.

            In this regard there is no material on record to establishing as to what construction OP No.1 to 3 have made which is required to be regularized, unless a clear idea of the unauthorized or illegal construction is furnished before this Forum, it cannot be said that the construction of the building is to be regularized. As such, the prayer (b) also cannot be allowed.

            OP No.1 to 3 have filed questionnaire against the affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant and Complainants have filed the reply of the questionnaire. From the reply of the Complainant it also does not appear as to what was the unauthorized construction which requires to be regularized. As such, prayer (b) also cannot be allowed.

            OP No.1 to 3 have filed evidence on affidavit wherein they have stated the facts mentioned in the written version. Against this Complainants have put questionnaire and OPs have filed reply. Here also there is nothing to establish the allegations of the Complainants.

            Prayer (c ) is a claim of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. In our view there does not appear any material as to why this compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- have been prayed. As such, Complainants are not entitled to this also. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any material to allow his complaint.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/62/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.