<br /> <br /> <br /> Date of Filing:21.02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 30.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30th DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Smt. C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 488 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Smt. C. Anusuyadevi,<br /> No.5, Opp. To General Hospital,<br /> B.M. Road, Robertsonpet,<br /> K.G.F – 563 112. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 515 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Dr. V. Renuka,<br /> No.102, Garuda Enclave,<br /> No.10, Murugan Temple Road,<br /> New Thippasandra,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 075. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 526 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Rahul Maxie Gomes,<br /> No.415, 2nd Cross, 1st Stage,<br /> Krishna Temple Road, Indiranagar,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 038.<br /> Rep by its. GPA Holder Ronald Mascarenhas …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 528 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Smt. Radhika Maxie Gomes,<br /> No.415, 2nd Cross, 1st Stage,<br /> Krishna Temple Road, Indiranagar,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 038.<br /> Rep by its. GPA Holder Ronald Mascarenhas …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> - V/S –<br /> <br /> M/s. Megacity (Bangalore)<br /> Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Mega Towers, No.120, K.H. Road, <br /> BANGALORE – 560 027. …OPPOSITE PARTY<br /> - Rep by its Managing Director - <br /> <br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> All these complaints involving common questions for similar reliefs are directed against the same opposite party and as such they are disposed-off by this common order. The case of the complainants is as under :-<br /> <br /> 2. With intention to purchase a site in VAJRAGIRI TOWNSHIP proposed to be formed by the opposite party on Mysore Road, Bangalore, the complainants became members of the said scheme. The dimension of the site applied for, the amount paid and the Site allotted to each complainant is as under :-<br /> SL.<br /> NO CASE <br /> NO SITE APPLIED FOR AMOUNT PAID SITE ALLOTTED<br /> <br /> 01 <br /> 488/2008 <br /> 44’ X 60’ <br /> 1,32,000-00 Site.No.177-C ‘B’ Block<br /> <br /> 02 <br /> 515/2008 <br /> 43.25’ X 60’ <br /> 1,49,660-00 Site.No.105 <br /> ‘B’ Block<br /> <br /> 03 <br /> 526/2008 <br /> 60’ X 40’ <br /> 96,000-00 Site.No.67 <br /> ‘B’ Block<br /> <br /> 04 <br /> 528/2008 <br /> 60’ X 40’ <br /> 96,000-00 Site.No.68<br /> ‘B’ Block<br /> <br /> 3. Inspite of allotting a particular site in-favour of each complainant and receiving the sital value the opposite party failed to execute registered sale deed in-favour of the complainants. It also did not respond to the legal Notice issued by the complainants. Hence, these complaints for a direction to the opposite party to execute registered sale deed in-respect of allotted sites and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> 4. In the version the contention of the opposite party is as under :-<br /> Site No.177-C in ‘B’ Block allotted in-favour of complainants in Case No.488/2008 is formed out of Survey No.66/3 of Sheshagirihalli. The sites allotted in-favour of other complainants in ‘B’ Block are formed out of Survey No.22 of Krishnarajapura Village. After entering into an agreement with the land owners to purchase those lands when an application was made to the Revenue Authorities for conversion of lands the same was refused and therefore the Company is not in a position to execute registered sale deed in-favour of the complainants and therefore it is ready to refund the amount paid by each complainant with Bank Rate of Interest. <br /> <br /> 5. In support of the respective contentions, both the parties have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments on both sides. <br /> <br /> 6. The points for consideration are :-<br /> <br /> (a) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency<br /> in service on the part of the opposite party ?<br /> <br /> (b) Whether the complainants entitled to the relief prayed <br /> for in the respective complaints ?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our findings on the above points are :-<br /> Point No.1:- In the affirmative,<br /> Point No.2:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. In the version the opposite party has not denied for having allotted a particular site in-favour of the each complainant and for having received the amount towards the sital value as contended in each complainant. Even the opposite issued possession certificate in-favour of the complainants in-respect of the site allotted. The only ground made out by the opposite party for not executing the sale deed in-favour of the each complainant is that the Revenue Authorities refused conversion of lands in Survey No.66/3 of Sheshagirihalli & Survey No.22 of Krishnarajapura Village to Non-agricultural purposes and therefore it could not execute sale deed in-favour of the complainants as the sites allotted to the complainants are formed in those lands. But, such an endorsement issued by the Revenue Department is not produced in support of this contention. The complainant in Case No.515/2008 has produced the copy of the letter dated: 01.08.2002 addressed to him by the opposite party. This letter pertains to registration of Site No.105 in ‘B’ Block allotted to the complainant. The opposite party informed the complainant that delay is caused because the Authorities called for further clarifications such as revising the layout plan, leaving more space for civic amenities and other related documents, it informed the complainant that the approval is expected shortly and the Company is planning to register the sites in-favour of the complainant by the middle of November-2002. If what is stated in this letter is believed to be true, it goes to show that the contention of the opposite party in the version that the Revenue Authorities refused conversion of the land is not true. In this letter the opposite party has admitted that as on 01.08.2002 the date of the letter, the Company had already registered number of sites in ‘B’ Block in-favour of other members. If that is so, without converting the land for Non-agricultural purposes and without the approved plan, the Company could not have register sale deed in-favour of the members in respect of the sites in ‘B’ Block of the layout. In the absence of material, we are unable to uphold the contention of the opposite party that the Revenue Authorities refused conversion of the land. This only indicates that without valid reason, the opposite party inspite of receipt of site cost failed to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainants. This act of the opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and therefore the complainants are entitled to seek registration of the sale deed in respect of the sites allotted to each of them. <br /> <br /> 8. However, from the documents produced in each case, it appears to us that the complainants have not made payment towards development and other charges. They appears to have paid only the land costs. In Case No.515/2008 the complainant has produced the copy of Agreement to Sell dated: 23.06.1995, in which it is provided that the cost of development & registration charges shall be borne by the purchaser. Therefore, while seeking registration of the sale deed the complainants have to pay the balance amount if any towards development and other charges to the opposite party. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 9. All the complaints are allowed. Subject to the complainants making payment of balance amount, if any towards development and other charges, the opposite party shall execute Registered Sale Deed in-favour of each complainant in respect of the site allotted. The opposite party shall also pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to each complainant. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.<br /> <br /> 10. The Original of this Order shall be kept in Case No.488/2008 and a true copy of the Order shall be kept in each of the other cases.<br /> <br /> <br /> 11. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> <br /> 12. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th DAY OF JUNE-2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />