Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant had applied to the opposite party on 6.3.1991 for a site measuring 40’ x 60’. She had paid the requisite initial deposit of Rs.5625/-. After some time she changed her residence and intimated the change in her address to the opposite party. She has alleged that despite intimating the change in address, the opposite party sent the site allotment letter to the old address and on it returning unserved, cancelled the allotment.<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant says that she had approached the opposite party several times seeking to know the status of her application. During one such visit she learnt from the case worker that she had been allotted a site in 2001. Immediately she approached the opposite party with representations to obtain the allotment letter. However, the allotment was cancelled in 2005 without even giving her any intimation. Having cancelled the allotment the opposite party went on to allot the same site first to one Lepaksha and then to one Bhagavan. The complainant says that re allotments were made even before allotment made to her was cancelled. <br /> <br /> 3. The complainant, further, says that the opposite party issued a news paper notification on 6.5.2005 calling upon the allottees who had not received the allotment letters to approach his office before 10.6.2005 to obtain the allotment letter. In response to such notice, the complainant submitted her application and the opposite party made an endorsement on the application asking his staff to find out whether the allotment had been sent to the changed address. The complainant says that the case worker did not forward her file to the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 4. After this, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party and as there was no reply, this complaint was filed. She has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to grant an alternative site to her at the same price as it was prevailing in 2001. She, also, wants compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and appropriate costs.<br /> <br /> 5. The opposite party is the Commissioner of the Mysore Urban Development Authority [MUDA]. Suffice to say that in the version all allegations made in the complaint have been denied. It is contended that whatever has been done is perfectly legal and is in accordance with law.<br /> <br /> 6. From the above pleadings the following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> a) Whether the complainant proves that she has intimated the changed address to the opposite party?<br /> <br /> b) Whether the complainant proves that the cancellation of the site allotted to her has been done arbitrarily?<br /> <br /> c) What relief or order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:<br /> Point 6(a): In the negative<br /> Point 6(b): In the affirmative<br /> Point 6(c): As per final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. POINT 6(a):-The complainant has submitted the original office file. The admitted facts are that the complainant applied for site measuring 40’ x 60’ in the year 1991 and that she was allotted a site in 2001. Though she says that she changed her residence and intimated the same to the opposite party, she has not produced any document to prove her contention. She has not even mentioned the date on which she gave the intimation of change in her address to the opposite party. From the office file of the opposite party it is seen that the allotment letter was dispatched on 24.5.2001 to the address given by the complainant in her application. From the postal endorsement on the envelop it can be gathered that it was not claimed and was returned to the opposite party. The complainant can not have any grievance. There is no record of her having intimated the change in address to the opposite party. The complainant appears to have woken up in December, 2004. Apparently she learnt that a site had been allotted to her in 2001 and because she had not intimated the change in address, the allotment letter was not served to her. She gave a letter to the opposite party on 20.12.2004 requesting him to consider her application. Even in this letter she does not contend that she had intimated the change in address to his office. It is, therefore, obvious that she did not intimate the change of address as contended by her. Hence, we have to answer the point in the negative.<br /> <br /> 9. POINT 6(b):-The complainant has produced a letter dated 4.3.2005 of the opposite party by which the cancellation of the allotment has been intimated. But as luck would have it she came across a newspaper notification issued by the opposite party. The notification says that the MUDA has decided to give another chance to those allottees whose allotment letters had come back unserved due to various reasons. The notification further said that such allottees should approach the MUDA before 10.6.2005 with certain particulars. The effect of this notification is that those applicants to whom allotments had been made in 1994, 1998, 2000 and 2001 but the allotment letter had returned to the MUDA for the reason that the allottee was not residing at the address given in the application, could avail this opportunity by furnishing certain particulars and they would get allotment letter. In response to this notification the complainant gave another letter to the opposite party on 16.5.2005. There is an endorsement on this letter directed to the case worker to verify whether the allotment letter had been sent to the changed letter. Now, it the case of the complainant that though she was informed about the cancellation of the allotment in March, 2005 itself, the subsequent paper publication revives her right for getting the allotment.<br /> <br /> 10. From the perusal of records found in the office file it is apparent that the opposite party had given another paper publication sometime in 2003 calling upon the allottees whose allotment letters had come back to MUDA for various reasons to come to the office and collect the allotment letter. It appears the publication contained complainant’s came also. But, the publication itself is not found in the office file. Nevertheless, the subsequent publication dated 6.5.2005 virtually revives the right of the allottees to get the allotment. In fact, the said publication revives the rights of those allottees who were allotted sites as far back as 1994 and 1998. <br /> <br /> 11. A contention has been taken by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the complainant failed to give her request in the prescribed format. True, the paper publication dated 6.5.2005 says that the allottees should obtain a form available in the office and submit it along with other particulars. The complainant has not done so but merely gave a letter on 16.5.2005. But as compared to this lapse on the part of the complainant we have been shown other lapses on the part of the opposite party. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that cancellation of the site has been made on 22.1.2005 much before the said paper publication on 6.5.2005. The cancellation letter has been issued on 4.3.2005 much after the complainant had given a request to consider her case. It says allotments made in 1994, 1998 and 2001 where the allottees failed to inform the MUDA about the change in their address are being cancelled. The question that arises is, if allotments made in 1994, 1998 and 2001 were cancelled in March, 2005 why issue paper publication in May, 2005 giving a hope to the very same people that they still have a chance to own the sites. As already pointed out, it amounts to revival of the rights of these allottees. Under these circumstances it has to be held that though cancellation of allotment in March, 2005 intimated to the complainant is in order, the subsequent resolution passed by the MUDA and the paper publication in May, 2005 revived the right of the complainant and she is therefore entitled to receive the site. In view of this we answer the point in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> 12. The learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the opposite party has deliberately sent the reply to complainant’s legal notice to a non existent address. The legal notice has been issued by Shri.S.Ravi Kumar, D.No.1740, Akbar Road, Mandi Mohall, Mysore while the reply has been sent to Shri.S.Shiva Kumar, No.1940, Akbar Road, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore. Though the negligence on the part of the opposite party is apparent we are not prepared to believe that there was any malafide intention in doing this. <br /> <br /> 13. As the site allotted to the complainant has already been reallotted the opposite party will have to be given the choice of giving her an alternative site or damages. With these observations we proceed to pass the following order: <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> A. Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> B. The opposite party is directed to allot the complainant a site measuring 40’ x 60’ in a similarly developed locality at the same price as mentioned in the allotment letter dated 25.2.2001. The initial payment made by the complainant be taken into account for purposes of arriving at the balance amount payable by the complainant. The site shall be allotted within 3 months from the date of this order. The complainant shall bear the registration expenses.<br /> <br /> C. If the opposite party fails to give the site as mentioned above, then the complainant shall be entitled to damages of Rs.8 lakhs. The said amount shall bear interest at 7% p.a from the expiry of three months period given to the opposite party for allotment of site till the date of payment. In this case the complainant is not entitled to refund of the initial deposit paid by her.<br /> D. Opposite party to pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. <br /> E. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br />