Date of Filing: 21.12.2011
Date of Disposal: 20.02.2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 20th day of February, 2013
C.C.No.169/2011
Between:
Smt.M.P.Naga Lakshmi,
W/o P.C.Sekhar,
D.No.21-105,Post Office Road,
Old Town,
Anantapur. … Complainant
Vs.
Anantapur Municipal Corporation,
Rep. by its Commissioner,
Anantapur. … Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the complainant and Sri M.Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the compliant, totaling a sum of Rs.65,000/- and also to direct the opposite party to issue approved building plan.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is a permanent resident of Anantapur Town. The case of the complaint is that the complainant’s husband gifted a site of Ac.0.05 cents in survey No.191-5 by way of registered gift deed on 25.05.2011. After that the complainant wanted to construct a house in the said plot by taking loan from the financial institutions for that purpose. The complainant made an application to the opposite party for approved plan of the building to be constructed in the said plot. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.14,030 to the opposite party as required by the opposite party for giving approval of the building plan. The calculation sheet was issued by the opposite party for Rs.10,470/- and Rs.3,600/- which were paid towards vacant site tax. After paying the said amount the complainant applied for sanction of approved building plan to Anantapur Municipal Corporation on 16.09.2011. The complainant submits that as per A.P. Municipal Corporation act there is specific clause for municipality to sanction and approve the plan within three months from the date of application and if the municipal corporation does not approve the plan or reject within the above said period it is to be deemed that the application is approved and the applicant can proceed with the construction work. But as the complainant wants to take the loan from the financial institutions where in it is a mandatory requirement to the financial institutions for production of approved building plan given by the municipal authorities for sanctioning the loan. The complainant states that she went number of times to the municipal corporation and requested the authorities to approve the plan stating that she has complied all the conditions imposed by the opposite party with regard to approval of the building plan. But the opposite party did not approve the building plan and at last stated to the complainant that she has to pay 10% open space contribution charges to the municipal corporation or reserve 10% of land within the site by readjusting the plots Though there is no specific provision under the A.P. Municipal act, to insist for the same. But the municipal authorities are insisting the complainant to pay the above said amount in order to approve the building plan. The complainant further submits that there is no clause to pay the amount of 10% of open space contribution charges and she further states that she has given sworn affidavit stating that she is ready to forgo 10% of the open site in Ac.0.05 cents for the sanction of the approved building plan. The complainant has complied all the above conditions mentioned by the opposite party with regard to sanction of approved building plan, the opposite party has not approved the building plan for the reasons best known to them. The complainant further submits that due to the inadvertent attitude of the opposite party she has to suffer mentally due to the delay in giving approval of the building plan and as a result she could not apply for bank loan. Hence, the construction of the said building could not be started in time. Even though she has spent lot of amount for the approval of the building plan and in the meantime the prices of the building material have escalated during the relevant period by 10% to 15%. Hence, in the above circumstances the opposite party is liable to pay escalated prices along with damages towards mental agony. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party the complainant has given representation to municipal authorities by way of registered post with acknowledgement due on 22.10.2011 requesting them to issue approved building plan. Even after receiving the said representation by the opposite party they did not sanction approved building plan.
3. The opposite party filed counter stating that the allegations made in the complaint or not at all true. The complainant has purchased plot to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in survey No.191/51 from P.Chandrasekhar son of P.Ranganayakulu who happened to be the husband of the complainant. The said Chandrasekhar has gifted a part of his site to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.0.20 cents to his wife without sub-division layout approval of the municipal corporation. Further there was no authorized access to the complainant’s site which is in violation of building rules and layout rules framed under A.P. Municipal Corporation Act. The complainant has paid the building license fee and vacant land tax as estimated by a private licensed surveyor instead of municipal approved licensed surveyor which is mandatory. There is no commitment of the municipal corporation for grant of permission on remittance of building license fee.
4. The opposite party submits that the husband of the complainant has gifted a part of site in favour of the complainant without layout approval or sub-division approval from the municipal commissioner or from the Director of Town and Country planning, A.P. Hyderabad. In fact the family members of Chandrasekhar are 4 members including his father, they owned the site in survey No.191/5 to an extent of Ac.71 cents combined property. The opposite party further states that they have sub-divided the entire site of Ac.0.71 cents in to three schedules by showing 20 feet road as access road and made a partition deed among them and registered vide No.297/2011 dt.10.03.2011. As per the layout rules of Municipal Corporation Act, if any person wants to develop the land or sub-divide the land into parts, they should apply for layout to the municipal commissioner under section 428 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. As per the layout rules, the minimum width of the road is 30 feet and they should provide 10% open space for public purposes. In this case they have not submitted the application for layout before sub-dividing the Ac.0.71 cents of site which violates the zoning regulations and layout rules.
5. The opposite party further submits that the father of Ranganaykulu and his 4 brothers have distributed Ac.0.71 cents in survey No.191/5 as follows: A party has taken cash in lieu of his share, B party has been allotted736.16 square yards property, C part got 968 squire yards and the D part got 328.8 square yards to their respective shares. Further the husband of the complainant i.e., Chandrasekhar has gifted Ac.0.05 cents of site out of Ac.0.23 cents in favour of his wife without sub-division and approval from the municipal authorities. The above sub-division clearly indicates that the family of Chandrasekhar has sub-divided Ac.0.71 cents of land among themselves to avoid 10% of open space to be gifted to the municipal corporation as per layout rules. Further the proposed site for construction of residential building falls within the industrial zone wherein residential buildings are not permitted to be constructed. The same was informed to the complainant vide Rc.No.AB.No.2338/2011/G1 dt.13.10.2011 within a month. Hence, the deemed provision under A.P. Municipal Act does not arise. Further the complainant has submitted the plans for construction of residential building in an industrial zone by violating the master plan and G.O.Ms.No.302 M.A. dt.15.04.2008. The normal procedure to be adopted in the municipal corporations enumerated in the above G.O. and buildings rules. The opposite party further states that in the case the corporation has received the application of the complainant for grant of license on 17.09.2011 and the same was disposed on 13.10.2011 i.e., within a month. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify whether the proposed site is satisfying the building rules, layout rules and zoning regulations. If the proposed site is satisfying the above rules then only the applicant should submit the proposals to the municipal corporation.
6. Further the allegations made in para 2 of the complaint are not true and the application of the complainant was disposed of by giving an endorsement by noting the reasons. But the complainant has not resubmitted the same after rectifying the defects pointed out. It is false to say that the municipal authorities have informed to the complainant to pay Rs.14,030/- for sanctioning the approved plan. The further allegations in para No.3 of the complaint are not true. After scrutiny of the building application, the commissioner may call for additional information/documents fees etc., under section 429 to 421 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, section 4322 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act says that if any application made under section 428 shall be deemed to have been given. The municipal authorities have explained about the Master Plan, Zoning Regulations and payment of 14% open space cost through the flexi exhibiting in the public place and also to the notice board of Municipal Corporation. Inspite of the above information the complainant instead of submitting the application with the relevant answers, approached this Forum with malafide intention to escape from the payment of fees as per the orders in force.
7. The opposite party further submits that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad have launched B.P.S. and L.R.S. Rules 2007 for regulations and unauthorized constructed buildings and unauthorized sub-division of plots which were made prior to 31.12.2007 which was extended up to 31.12.2011. As already submitted, the complainant has not complied with the above conditions and her application has been returned by the executive authority of Municipal Corporation. The opposite party further submits that the amount paid by the complainant i.e., Rs.14,730/- was paid by herself without any demand or notice. The complainant is plot is Ac.0.05 cents is situated in an unauthorized layout and sub-divided without approval of the municipal corporation. Hence, she has to pay betterment charges 14% costs of the open site which is mandatory. The opposite party submits that the complainant made an allegation that the Anantapur Municipal Corporation has demanded 10% of open space cost is false and at the same time the allegation is denied. Therefore in the above circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) To what relief?
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A9 documents.
10. Heard both sides
11. POINT NO 1:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant has applied for the sanction of approval of a building plan for the construction of a house in her site Ac.0.05 cents in survey No.191/5 which was gifted to her by her husband by way of registered gift deed dt.25.05.2011. After that the complainant applied for approval of building plan in order to construct a building by taking loan from the financial institutions. The complainant filed a Xerox copy of the gift deed which is Ex.A1 it shows that she was gifted Ac.0.05 cents in survey No.191/5. The complainant after having gifted the empty site of Ac.0.05 cents in her favour she applied for approval of building plan to the municipal authorities by paying a sum of Rs.14,030/- towards vacant site tax. At the time of applying for sanction of the building approved plan the municipal authorities have informed to the complainant that she has to pay an amount of Rs.14,030/- which she paid and complied. The complainant wanted the sanction of approved building plan in order to take a loan from the financial institutions as it is mandatory. Hence she contacted the municipal authorities to sanction the approved building plan. In the meantime the municipal authorities have taken an objection that the proposed site was situated in the industrial zone and hence they cannot sanction the approval of building plan. For which the complainant has given a notarized affidavit that she is ready to forgo 10% of the open site in Ac.0.05 cents for sanction of approved building plan, which is marked as Ex.A4. The complainant counsel further argued that the municipal authorities have not approved the building plan of the complainant for the reasons best known to them even though the objections taken by them were complied by the complainant. The objection taken by the opposite party that it falls under industrial zone is not correct as the said site was industrial zone at an early date but many buildings are constructed in the said area and approvals are being given for constructing buildings in the same area. The opposite party has not filed any document to show that it is under industrial area as on today. Hence we are convinced that the said area is not industrial area as on today and believe the version of the complainant. Hence, it is not the industrial area as said by the opposite party.
12. The counsel for complainant argued that the opposite party never took objection in writing to the complainant in order to approve the building plan as stipulated in the Municipal Corporation Act. When a person applies for sanction of approved building plan it is the duty of the municipality to take objection or sanction the building plan within three months from the date of application. If no action is taken in this regard it is deemed that the municipality has approved the building plan. But in the instant case they have not taken any objection in writing in order to sanction the building plan. As the complainant wants to take a loan from the financial institutions for which an approved building plan is a must for sanctioning the loan. The complainant needs an approval of building plan from the opposite party. In the above circumstances the complainant could not apply for a housing loan as the opposite party did not sanction the approved building plan. In the meantime the cost of building material has escalated by 10% to 15% which is a burden to the complainant. Hence, the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss.
13. After hearing the arguments and perusal of all the records it clearly shows that the opposite party has not taken any objection or approved sanction for the building plan of the complainant within the reasonable time of three months. Hence, in the above circumstances we are of the view that the opposite party sanction the approved building plan within a period of one month in order to construct the house by the complainant.
14. In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite party to sanction approval of building plan within one month from the date of this order. Each party do bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 20th day of February, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Photo copy of gift deed dt.07.07.2011 relating to the complainant.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of building application form submitted by the complainant to
the opposite party.
Ex.A3 Photo copies of challans relating to vacant tax paid by the complainant
to the opposite party.
Ex.A4 Photo copy sworn affidavit relating to the complainant.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of letter dt.22.10.2011 sent by the complainant to the
Opposite party.
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgement signed by the complainant.
Ex.A7 True copy of partition deed relating to husband of the complainant.
Ex.A8 True copy of site plan.
Ex.A9 Attested copy of residential use zone plan.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
NIL
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
