Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant made an application to the O.P. for allotment of a site of 20’x30’ dimension by paying registration fee of Rs.750/- on 2-3-1991. At the time of making the application he was residing at No.798, Band Banglow, Nazarbad Mohalla, Mysore and subsequently shifted to 738/A, Paparam Road, Nazarbad Mohalla, Mysore. The complainant informed the O.P. about the change in his address.<br /> 2. The complainant has stated that while he was hoping to get allotment of the site he was dismayed to learn that the O.P. had allotted and subsequently cancelled the allotment of site no.3913 in Devanur III Stage, Mysore. He, also, learnt that the allotment letter had been sent to his old address and as it came back unserved the allotment had been cancelled. <br /> 3. The complainant has submitted that he made repeated requests to the O.P. to consider his plea as he had intimated the change in address to them. But the O.P. gave an endorsement on 17-8-2005 that the complainant was not entitled to the site. The complainant has prayed that the O.P. be directed to give possession of the allotted site or atleast consider his seniority while making future allotment. He has, also, prayed for awarding of damages of Rs.10,000/-.<br /> 4. The version of the O.P. is Cryptic. Everything alleged by the complainant has been denied. It is, also, stated that the complaint is hit by section 64 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act.<br /> 5. From the above contentions the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> a) Whether the complainant proves that the cancellation of the allotted site by the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service?<br /> b) Whether the O.P. proves that the cancellation has been made in accordance with the Rules?<br /> c) What order or relief?<br /> 6. We have answered the above points as under:-<br /> Point no.5(a): In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.5(b): In the negative.<br /> Point no.5(c): As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Points no. 5(a) and 5(b):- As both the points eminate from the act of the O.P. they are taken up for consideration together. The fact that the complainant applied for a site can be gathered from the acknowledgement given by the O.P. on 2-3-1991. His letter intimating the change in address was delivered to the O.P.’s office on 10-9-1991 as can be seen from the rubber stamp of the O.P.’s office on the copy of the letter. This letter was denied by the O.P. initially. Later on, a memo was filed by the O.P. merely admitting that the seal on the letter filed by the complainant is of his office. Such admission has made our job easy. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant did notify the O.P. of change in address. Consequently, the cancellation of allotment of the site is illegal. We would have appreciated if the memo filed by the O.P. contained one more sentence offering a site to the complainant, either the same site or an alternative one. As there is no such offer, it has become necessary to pass this order. Therefore, we answer point 5(a) in the affirmative and 5(b) in the negative.<br /> 8. The O.P. has filed the original office file which contains a copy of the paper publication given by him calling upon the allottees who had not received the allotment letters. It does contain the complainant’s application number, also. The paper publication has called upon the allottees listed there under to approach O.P.’s office within 15 days. In the normal circumstances non compliance of the instruction in the paper publication would have made the complainant disentitled for relief. However, a prior act of the O.P. who did not take cognizance of the complainant’s letter intimating the change in address, has made the subsequent paper publication irrelevant. However, it is relevant to note that a letter of the then President of the Mysore Urban Development Authority addressed to the complainant is found in the file of the O.P. and this letter is addressed to the new address given by him. It is obvious that had the change in address not been received by the O.P.’s office, this letter would have been addressed to the old address.<br /> 9. The only other contention of the O.P. that the complaint is hit by section 64 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, does not merit discussion in view of section 3 of the C.P.Act. Further, section 64 is not applicable to proceedings before this Forum. The complainant applied for small site and waited for over 10 years. Now, despite allotment he has been deprived of the site for over 3 years for no fault of his. Keeping in view the loss of enjoyment, escalation in cost of construction we feel that the complainant is entitled for damages. With these observations we proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The O.P. is directed to handover possession of site no.3913, Devanur III Stage allotted to him in terms of allotment letter dated 14-7-03 and execute necessary documents.<br /> 3. If the above site has been reallotted already, the O.P. shall allot a similar site to the complainant in any other area, on same terms and conditions.<br /> 4. Such allotment shall be made within 2 months from the date of this order at the price as prevailing on 14-7-03.<br /> 5. If no site is allotted as aforesaid within 2 months from the date of this order complainant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.<br /> 6. If the O.P. fails pay the compensation as mentioned above within 2 months thereafter, the compensation amount shall carry interest at 7% p.a. thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> 7. The O.P. is directed to pay the complainant damages of Rs.5,000/- failing which it shall carry future interest at the rate of 7% thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> 8. O.P. shall pay the complainant cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> 9. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />