BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 17^TH DAY OF MAY 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. To comply with all the conditions stipulated in the order of conversation and approval of the layout plan by BMICAPA and provide all the civic amenities to the site registered.
2. Directing the OPs to give clear possession in respect of site No.30A in A-1 Block, Khata No.120/30A measuring 43 ft X 74 ft., in all measuring 3182 sq.feet, situated at Sheshagirihalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk as per the official memorandum.

Or

3. Directing the OPs to provide alternative site measuring 43ft X 74 ft., in all 3182 sq.ft., situated at Sheshagirihalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District.

Or

4. Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- the value of the site at present with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of execution of sale deed dated 06.09.2012 till realisation.
5. To grant compensation, punitive damages of Rs.54,00,000/- to the complainant
6. Pass such further orders with cost and advocate fee.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The OP1 is the developer under the name and style of Megacity Bangalore Developers ad builders and OP2 is the MD of the said company and OP3 to 5 are the directors of the Megacity.  The OPs have introduced a housing scheme to develop residential layouts in vast areas of land called Vajragiri Township of Mysore Road at Sheshagiri halli village,  Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagar Taluk, to allot and sell house sites to the general public who became the members of the scheme and made payment of sale consideration.  

3. The complainant got attracted by the said housing scheme became the member of the OP with regard to allotment of weekend residential site and the OPs have offered to allot site measuring east to 43 feet north to south 74 feet in the said residential layout.
4. It is further case of the complainant that the OPs previously allotted the site No.30/A in favour of one Smt.Swetha and whose membership No.4312 dated 25.06.1995 she has also paid the advance sale consideration monthly to the OPs. Due to some misunderstanding between the OPs and the said Swetha, the said Swetha took back the amount and after cancellation of her membership the OPs have received Rs.32,40,000/- from the complainant and transferred the membership and allotted the site from the said Swetha.  The OPs after received the entire sale consideration, have executed the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant on 06.08.2022 and also issued a fake possession certificate on 10.09.2012.  The complainant is paying taxes to the property upto 2019 and subsequently the tax could not be paid since the panchayath authorities have refused to receive the tax from the complainant. But the OPs have received the entire amount of Rs.32,40,000/- in order to give it to the earlier site owner Smt.Swetha and they have only mentioned the consideration amount as Rs.2,40,000/- in the registered sale deed.
5. It is further case of the complainant that the OPs arise to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant by getting the land converted and also after plan sanctioned from BMICAPA for formation of residential layout in Sy.numbers of Sheshagiri Village. The order of approval of formation of residential layout in BMICAPA is subject to compliance of the various terms and conditions imposed in the order.
6. It is further case of the complainant that the OP has to comply the terms and conditions as per the order of BMICAPA by constructing the roads, drainage system, facilities for drinking water, providing electricity, sewage treatment plan and also surrendering the areas of the road, park and other civic amenities area to the concerned panchayath.  The OPs after executing the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant required to develop the layout as per the terms and conditions but OP failed to develop the layout. Now the said site is unfit for human habitation.  OPs have not at all provided any road  or any facility for drinking water, electricity sewage treatment plant etc., in view of the same the land owners in the area used to carry out the agricultural operations in the said layout.  After receiving the entire sale consideration the OPs have not shown any interest to develop the area.
7. The complainant has approached the OP on several times and requesting to develop the surrounding area and to provide all the aforesaid civic amenities which are basic requirement to construct the house in the site register or alternative site for construction or refund of the amount of Rs.32,40,000/- along with interest. The OP has not responded to her request and also not provided the civic amenities.  The OPs have not handed over the possession in respect of site No.30A in favour of the complainant for construction of the building.  Hence the complainant got issued legal notice on 21.11.2022 even after received the legal notice the OPs have not complied the demands of the complainant and they have issued an untenable reply on 06.08.2012. Subsequently the complainant issued a rejoinder dated 07.01.2023 narrating all the misdeeds and deficiency of service after allotting and registering the site. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint.
8. In response to the notice, OPs appeared and files version. It is the case of the OPs that it is a registered company registered under the companies Act. They have further admitted that they had executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant. The complainant after collected all the original title deed in respect of the site in land situated at Sheshagiri Halli, and accordingly she was put in possession and enjoyment of the said site on the same day.
9. It is further case of the OPs that the complainant after obtained the sale deed has become the absolute owner of the said site the complainant has acquired site No.30A, in A-1 Block measuring 3182 sq.feet by virtue of the sale deed.  The khata was also transferred in the name of the complainant and she has paid the tax and the complainant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 10 years.  The prayer made by the complainant is frivolous and vexatious and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  
10. It is further case of the OPs that the complainant got issued legal notice on 21.11.2022 seeking for civic amenities after the period of 10 years of execution of the sale deed clearly evidences the facts none use the roads and civic amenities and the same might have been damaged due to time.  After lapse of 10 years of execution of the sale deed the complainant being a resident has to verify the actual particulars at the time of execution of the sale deeds the OPs provided all civic amenities along with the roads and the complainant has physically verified and after duly satisfied about the title of the property as well as physical nature of the property come forward to get the sale deed.  Now the complainant taking untenable grounds at this belated stage which is not only time barred but also without any material evidence on record.
11. The OP has denied all the other allegations made in the complaint except the fact that the complainant has purchased the site under the registered sale deed on 06.08.2012 and she was put in possession of the property on the same day.  The complainant has taken possession of the site only after verifying the title deeds and also the civic amenities and roads etc., formed by the OPs in the layout.  When the complainant has got the registered sale deed they are bound by the terms of the sale deed only. This OPs have comply with all the terms and conditions and provided all civic amenities the complainant has approached this commission after lapse of 10 years by raising untenable grounds.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation.  There is no question of deficiency of service on the part of these OPs. The complainant in order to pressurize these OPs for the purpose of fulfillment of her malafide intention of getting unjust enrichment has filed this complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 15 documents.  Affidavit evidence of one of the director of the OP company has been filed and OP relies on 20 documents.

13. Heard the arguments of both the parties.  Perused the written arguments filed by the OPs.

14. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

15. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

16. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of both the parties, written arguments of OPs and documents.
17. It is clear from the evidence and documents produced by both the parties that the OPs have executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant as per Ex.P1 dated 06.08.2012 in respect of site bearing No.30A in A-1 Block, bearing Khata No.120/30A, measuring 3182 sq. feet, situated at Sheshagiri Halli, formed in the land bearing Sy.Nos.77/83, 77/1, which is duly converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. After that the possession certificate was issued in favour of the complainant as per Ex.P2 and possession was taken on 10.09.2012. The Ex.P3 is the demand register extract, and the complainant has paid the tax.  Ex.P3A is the assessment extract, Ex.P4 is the EC, Ex.P5 and 6 are the conversion order, Ex.P7 is the order of BMIC dated 20.01.2003, Ex.P8 is the Layout plan, Ex.P9 is the membership certificate, Ex.P10 is the complaint given to the police against the Megacity, Ex.P11 Legal notice dated 21.11.2022, Ex.P12 is the postal receipts and acknowledgements, Ex.P13 is the reply notice dated 06.12.2022, Ex.P14 is the rejoinder dated 07.01.2023 and Ex.P15 is the photos of the layout.
18. The main grievance of the complainant is that after execution of the sale deed the OP has not at all delivered possession of the said site.  The OP has undertaken to develop the layout by forming roads, drainage system and also providing facilities for drinking water and sewage treatment plan and also parks and other civic amenities.  The OP has failed to develop the layout as per the conditions imposed by the BMICAPA at the time of conversion of the land. The OPs have not shown any interest to develop the area, fit for construction of dwelling house in the said area and it clearly amounts to deficiency of service.
19. On the other hand, in order to prove their contention one of the director of the OP company has filed their affidavit and also relied on Ex.R1 to R20. The main contention taken by the OP is that they have executed the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant as per Ex.P1 and put the complainant in possession of the said site.  The complainant has physically verified about the title documents and also visited the spot and verified about the formation of road and all other civic amenities.  Now the complainant has issued the legal notice on 21.11.2022 seeking for civic amenities after lapse of 10 years of execution of sale deed.
20. It is further contention taken by the OPs that the none use of the road and civic amenities and the same might have been damaged due to passing of time. The complainant being a resident has verified actual particulars at the time of execution of the sale deeds about the civic amenities provided by these OPs along with the roads. After duly satisfied with the civic amenities and also title has come forward to purchase the site and she has purchased the site.  The very complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time as she filed this complaint after lapse of 10 years after getting the registered sale deed in her name.
21. In support of their contention the OPs have produced the copy of the reply notice as Ex.R1, R2 is the power sanction certificate, Ex.R3 is the original magazine dated 15.03.1999 for formation of layout. Ex.R4 is the contract certificate for supplying of 20mm jelly and 40 mm jelly boulders and size stone bill voucher receipt and cash bill, Ex.R5 is the certificate for supplying of sand, Ex.R6 and R7 are the certificate for supplying granite, slab supply, Ex.R8 is the certificate for storm water drainage water construction and Ex.R9 is the certificate for road metalize work, Ex.R10 is the certificate for granite slab fixing for drain, Ex.R11  is the supply of size stone, bulldozer and voucher receipt, Ex.R12 is the cash bill for purchase of cement, Ex.R13 is the certificate for bridge construction, Ex.R14 painting bills, Ex.R15 and 16 are the orders passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC and also order passed by the III Addl. DCDRC in CC No.3281/2006.  Ex.P17 is the form No.10, demand registered issued by the Manchanayakanahalli Grama Panchayath, Ex.R18 is the complaint given by the OP to the Bidadi police station on 24.08.2021, Ex.P19 is the acknowledgement issued by the police and Ex.R20 is the layout plan approved by the BMICAPA.
22. After going through all the documents produced by both the parties it is clear that the complainant has purchased the site from the OPs in the year 2012 itself.  The documents produced by the OPs as per Ex.R1, R2 and R4 to R14 and R17 to R20 clearly discloses that the OPs have spent sufficient amount for purchase of the materials for formation of the road and also for providing electricity connection and for supply of electricity connection.  The OPs have also produced the demand register extract to show that the site purchaser in the said layout have got the khata in their names from the Manchanayakanahalli village panchayath and they were paying the taxes.  The OPs have also filed a complaint before the Bidadi police against one Siddarajaiah of the same village for removing the boundary stones in the sites formed in the A1 block in the residential layout and also trying to do agricultural activities and also constructed the house in the said layout. OPs have lodged complaint on 25.08.2021.
23. It is pertinent to note here that the complainant has raised the questions in the interrogatories and the OPs have also given proper reply to the said interrogatories.  
24. The complainant has filed this complaint after lapse of 10 years after obtaining the registered sale deed as per Ex.P1 in respect of the site from the OPs.  When the complainant has obtained the registered sale deed it is presumed that the possession was handed over to the complainant and the complainant has obtained the sale deed after satisfied with the title and the amenities given by the OPs.  If the complainant is not at all satisfied with the title or the amenities given by the complainant, nothing prevented her from approaching this commission by filing the complaint within two years after getting the sale deed in her favour.  The complainant has also raised doubt in respect of the title of the said land of the OP.  The complainant cannot raise the question of title before this commission after obtaining the sale deed in the year 2012 itself.  The contention taken by the complainant is that the site registered in her favour as per Ex.P1 is not at all in existence and the OPs have to deliver the possession of the site in her favour by providing all civic amenities. The documents produced by the OPs clearly discloses that they have provided all the civic amenities before executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  When the complainant has obtained the registered sale deed it is presumed that the possession of the said site was delivered in favour of the complainant on the date of execution of the sale deed on 06.08.2012 itself. The schedule and measurement of the site clearly mentioned in the sale deed in Ex.P1 and P2. If really the property is not at all in existence, the complainant would not have purchased the site from the OPs after paying the entire sale consideration amount.  It is the duty of the complainant to maintain the site by taking all precautionary measures. If the strangers have entered the layout and destroy the civic amenities provided by the OPs and also remove the boundary stones and using the land for agricultural purposes. The OPs are not responsible for the said damages caused by the third party. This commission cannot direct the OPs to again provide all the civic amenities after lapse of 10 years after purchase of site by the complainant. Hence the relief claimed by the complainant cannot be granted. This commission can direct the OPs to provide the civic amenities in a case where the layout and sites are in existence. When there is a genuine doubt regarding the existence of the site and layout, this commission cannot direct the OPs to provide the alternative site or refund of the amount or to provide basic civic amenities to the complainant who obtained the registered sale deed in the year 2012 itself. Under these circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable.  If the property is not at all in existence this commission has no jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed and to direct the OPs to refund the amount in favour of the complainant. The complainant has to approach the proper civil court for the said relief.  Hence we answer point No.1 and point No.2 in the Negative.
25. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed. No costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 17^TH day of MAY 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;