Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President . <br /> The Complainant has purchased a unit in Duplex Housing Scheme in the name and style Saraswati Enclave constructed by the Opposite Party, and the sale transaction was completed on Dt. 05/10/2007. The construction of the unit was not completed on a particular date so the different purchasers taken possession of their respective unit at different point of times. The complainant contends that till date the developer has not under taken the cementing or metaling work of the entrance of the Duplex Scheme which is in a dangerous condition even after many discussion. The Complainant further contends that the Opposite Party has constructed a road in a portion of open to sky portion which is meant for plantation and laying open and as such he has violated to special town planning permission thereby the Opposite Party has mis-utilised the funds given by the purchaser. Further the Complainant contends that the Opposite Party has illegally demolished a portion of compound wall which lies adjacent to the open to sky piece of land.<br /> <br /> The Complainant requested the Opposite Party to complete the construction of the road, back side of boundary wall and remove construction from the open to sky portion but Opposite Party neglected to comply the same.<br /> <br /> Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed this case against the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> In its version the Opposite Party denied to have cause any deficiency in service or any restrictive trade practice towards the Complainant and also denied all other allegation made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party contends that by virtue of an agreement entered into between the parties on Dt. 15/12/2000 the Complainant was alloted the unit No.21(twenty one) and on completion of the unit it was handed over to the Complainant on Dt. 07/02/2003. The Complainant delayed to clear up the dues in spite of several request by the Opposite Party and lastly, on Dt. 30/07/2004 the Opposite Party registered the sale deed infavour of the Complainant and since then the Complainant become the owner of the unit No. 21(twenty one).<br /> <br /> The Complainant is not the owner of any land in excess of his purchase land and the unit standing there on. Neither the Complainant nor the purchasers have raised any complaint regarding the road at the time of delivery of possession of their respective unit.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party contends that all the units including the unit of the Complainant has been provided with individual boundary wall as per the agreement. There is no provision of combine compound wall surrounding the entire unit either in the agreement or in the sanctioned plan. The Complainant is not the owner of the open to sky portion. There is also no provision for such area marked as open to sky in the agreement. No where in the sanctioned plan or the agreement it has been marked for plantation and to be kept open. The Opposite Party has not violated the terms and condition of the plan sanctioned and permission granted by the S.P.A. Bargarh. Further the Opposite Party contends that the temporary houses constructed for labourers engaged during the 1st phase construction was demolished for convince of the 2nd phase construction and not the compound wall as shown in the red portion shown in the Annexure-5.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party contends that the Complainant has not raised any allegation in respect to his unit for which he is entitled to raise dispute as a consumer and so this dispute is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> Further the Opposite Party claims that the dispute is barred by law of limitation as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the complaint petition, Opposite Party's version as well as copy of documents filed in respective of their case and also heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the Parties and found as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant was allotted the unit No.21(twenty one) in the Saraswati Enclave and on completion of the unit it was handed over to the Complainant on Dt. 07/02/2003 and on Dt. 30/07/2004 the Opposite Party registered the sale deed in favour of the Complainant and since than the Complainant is become the owner of the unit No.21(twenty one). The 41(forty one) unit including the unit No.21(twenty one) are provided with road for there convenience and are provided with individual boundary wall as per the terms of agreement. As per the sale deed the total area of the unit No.21(twenty one) compromises 2000 square feet having a total built up area 2050 square feet which includes the ground floor and Ist floor. Para 9 clause (m) and the Para 11 clause (iv) of the agreement says, the purchaser can not claim any right in any other party of lands, units, road and services. The purchaser includings the Complainant are not the owner of any land in excess of their purchased land and the unit standing there on. The Complainant has not raised any allegation of deficiency in service in respect to his Unit No.21(twenty one) for which he is entitled to raise dispute as consumer. The Complainant is a consumer of Opposite Party in respect to his purchase unit only and not for other unit or any other land i.e. road, open to sky or boundary wall as alleged in the complaint petition.<br /> <br /> Secondly, the Complainant has taken delivery of possession of his unit on Dt. 07/02/2003 and sale deed was registered on Dt. 30/07/2004 and since than the Complainant become the owner and in possession in his own, right title and interest absolutely for ever in respect to the Unit No.21(twenty one). The Complainant has not raised any allegation of non construction of road at the time of taking delivery of possession or till the filing of this present dispute. Only on Dt. 22/01/2005 the Complainant through his pleader notice raised false and base less allegation which was duly answered by the Opposite Party. But the Complainant remain silent with out approaching any court of law. The present dispute filed on Dt. 20/09/2008 is barred by limitation as provided in Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> In view of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.<br /> <br /> Complaint disposed of.<br /> No Cost/Compensation.<br />