Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1.       The complainant Sri. N. Nagendra has filed this complaint against the opposite party No.1 Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru.   Opposite party No.2 SBM Employees House Building Co-operative Society praying to direct the opposite party No.1 to issue Title Deed in the name of complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and  cost.

2. The brief facts are that:-

The complainant is a member of 2^nd opposite party society, 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party had allotted a site bearing No.3 to the complainant on 31.12.1991 at block No.19, SBM layout, Srirampura 2^nd stage, Mysuru.Thereafter on 10.06.1991 the 1^st opposite party executed a registered deed of lease cum sale agreement.On 10.07.1991 possession of schedule property handed over to complainant by opposite party No.1 and also issued possession certificate and on 21.10.1992 khataand Kandaya patra were issued by opposite party No.1 and the complainant is paying taxes to opposite party No.1 regularly.It is further contended that on many occasions the complainant demanded opposite party No.1 to issue Title Deed in respect of schedule property, but the opposite party No.1 used to say Government sanction is required for the same.It is further contended that the complainant gathered the information regarding filing of cases prior to causing written request to opposite party No.1. On 29.08.2018 the complainant given application to opposite party No.1 seeking Title Deed.But the opposite party No.1 had issued endorsement dated 29.09.2018 stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park, hence Title Deed cannot be issued.It is further submitted that many cases filed against opposite party No.1 to issue Title Deed pertaining to SBM layout Srirampura 2^nd stage, Mysuru and also Madhuvana layout which is adjacent layout before this Forum.This Forum directed the opposite party No.1 to issue Title Deed, possession and costs.It is further contended that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party No.1 is a service provider that the act of the opposite party No.1 in not discharging its statutory obligation/duty in issuing the Title Deed to complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.Hence, this complaint.

3. After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite party Nos.1 and 2.   In response to notices the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared before this Forum through their respective counsels and filed their respective versions.  The opposite party No.1 in its version has contended that the complainant  has not come up with the present complaint before this Forum with clean hands and the same is  not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence the same is liable to be dismissed and he admits the para No.1 to 10 of the complaint as true,  with regard to allotment of site No.3 to complainant by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 and execution of registered lease cum sale agreement dated 10.07.1991 and issuance of possession certificate and khatha certificate, khandayam,  receipts dated 21.10.1992 by opposite party No.1 in favour of complainant and also admitted issuance of endorsement dated 29.09.2018 in favour of complainant by opposite party No.1 stating that the schedule property  comes within the area earmarked for park  and also the opposite party No.1 in the version admitted that it has issued building license for construction of house on the schedule property but denied the averments made in the complaint that the opposite party No.1 had assured to issue Title Deed in favour of complainant and contended that as the schedule site comes within the area earmarked for park Title Deed not issued and stated that the averments made in the complaint that opposite party No.2 is made as formal party is not correct.  Since the opposite party No.2 had formed layout and allotted sites.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. Opposite party No.2 in its version has admitted the averments of complaint in so for as documents are concerned produced by the complainant and admitted that the 2^nd opposite party purchased lands in various survey numbers and got approved the plan from opposite party No.1 to form layout under its supervision.  Accordingly the opposite party No.2 formed layout and issued sites to its members and it is contended that opposite party No.2 requested opposite party No.1 to issue Title Deeds and admits that the opposite party No.1 had issued possession certificate, khatha certificate, collected taxes from the said owners and issued tax paid receipts and it is further contended that on 16.02.2008 the opposite party No.1 in its meeting passed resolution with certain conditions to issue khatha, building license, Hakku Pathra and also issued Hakku Pathra to some of the site owners and admits that the complainant is a beneficiary of the 2^nd opposite party to whom site has been allotted as mentioned in the complaint.  The opposite party No.2 has not violated any rules and it has done its duty in good faith in allotting the sites. For all these reasons prays to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.2.

5.      The complainant in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked documents Exhibit P.1 to P.10.  On the other hand opposite party No.1 has also filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as R.W.1 and got marked Exhibit R.1.

6.      Opposite party  No.2 also filed his affidavit and the same was taken as R.W.2, but not got marked any documents.  

7.      We have heard the orals arguments of both sides. The complainant as well as opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have also filed their written arguments also.

8.     The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that  the act of opposite party No.1 in not issuing Title Deed in his favour in respect of schedule property amounts to deficiency in service?
2.  What order?

9.          Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- In the affirmative;

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

10.          Point No.1:- The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued  and submitted as per the contention taken in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and documentary evidence produced by complainant and as per the notes of arguments.  On the other hand counsels for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 also vehemently argued as per the contention taken in their respective versions, affidavits and documents produced by opposite party No.1.

11.       We have carefully gone through the records and averments made in the complaint, affidavit of complainant, documents produced by the complainant and the contention taken in the version of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and documents produced by opposite party No.1.

12.      The complainant’s counsel has produced certain documents such as orders dated 12.03.2018 passed by Hon’ble KSCDRC, Bangaluru in Appeal No.62/2017, Appeal No,3779/2009 and orders passed by DCDRF, Mysuru in CC-113/2009, CC-655/2010 to CC-658/2010, CC-443/2013, CC-218/2017, CC-219/2017, CC-221/2017, CC-253/2018, CC-356/2018, CC-135/2018 and CC-136/2018 showing that this Forum has passed orders in some other similar cases directing the opposite party No.1 MUDA to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the complainants.

13.      It is not in dispute that opposite party No.2 after purchase of several lands formed SBM layout, Srirampura 2^nd stage, Mysuru,  after obtaining sanction from opposite party No.1 and as per approved plan carved sites in the layout and allotted to its members, the complainant is one  such allottee in respect of schedule site.

14. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party No.2 allotted site No.3 to the complainant on 31.12.1990 and the opposite party No.1 on 10.06.1991 executed lease cum sale deed in favour of complainant in respect of schedule property and on 10.07.1991 issued possession certificate and handed over possession of schedule property to complainant and also issued khatha certificate  and tax paid receipt on 21.10.1992 and it is also not in dispute that the complainant has been  paying taxes to opposite party No.1 regularly.  But it is the case of the complainant that on 29.08.2018  he had given an application to opposite party No.1 seeking Title Deed.  But to the shock and surprise of the complainant on 29.09.2018 the opposite party No.1 had issued an endorsement stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park, therefore Title Deed cannot be issued.  Hence, the opposite party No.1 declined to issue Title Deed in favour of complainant in respect of schedule property.  Therefore having no other go the complainant has approached this Forum with this complaint praying  to direct opposite party No.1 to issue Title Deed.  The endorsement  produced by complainant dated 29.09.2018, issued by opposite party No.1 clearly go to show that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park,  therefore Title Deed cannot be issued.

15. Though the opposite party No.1 has contended as per its endorsement dated 29.09.2018 stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park hence Title
    Deed cannot be issued in respect of schedule property, but no documents are produced by opposite party No.1 such as  approved/sanctioned plan of the layout formed by opposite party No.2 showing that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park and it is pertinent to note that on 31.12.1990 itself the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 had allotted schedule site to complainant and subsequently executed lease cum sale agreement dated 10.06.1991, issued possession certificate on 10.07.1991 and also issued khatha certificate and tax paid receipts on 21.10.1992.  But after lapse of 26 years i.e.,  on 29.09.2018 the opposite party No.1 had issued endorsement to complainant stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park. At this juncture the question would arise as to why the opposite party No.1 has kept quiet for all these 26 years in not intimating the complainant stating that the schedule property is comes within the area earmarked for park.  For this no answer from opposite party No.1.

16. It is the duty of the opposite party No.1 to ascertain as to whether the schedule site is comes within the area earmarked for park as per the approved/sanctioned plan before allotment of schedule site to complainant and execution of registered lease cum sale agreement and issuance of possession certificate and khatha and taxes paid receipts.  But the opposite party No.1 had issued all these documents such as lease cum sale deed, possession certificate, khatha certificate and tax paid receipts and also issued building license.  Accordingly the complainant had put up building on the schedule property  and residing there in  under such circumstances at this stage the contention taken by opposite party No.1 by issuing endorsement dated 29.09.2018 stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park, therefore Title Deed cannot be issued in favour of the complainant in respect of the schedule property cannot be believed and accepted and in the absence of production of approved/ sanctioned plan showing that the schedule property is comes within the area earmarked for park.  The contention taken by the opposite party No.1 that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park cannot be relied upon  and prima-facie it shows that the act of the opposite party No.1 in not issuing Title Deed  infavour of the complainant in respect of schedule property appears to be fishy and there is malafide intention behind it to  harass the complainant and not for any other reason.  Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved that the act of the opposite party No.1 in not issuing Title Deed in his favour in respect of schedule property amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party No.1 is liable to issue Title Deed/Registered Sale Deed in favour of complainant in respect of schedule property.

17.      Since the complainant has not sought for any reliefs against opposite party No.2, the complaint against opposite party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.  And in view of  the opposite party No.1 being the Government Statutory Authority it cannot be directed to pay compensation to complainant as prayed in the complaint, since the public tax money cannot be allowed to misuse.    Hence, we answer point No.1  in the affirmative.

18. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by complainant is allowed.
2.  The opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to issue/execute Title Deed/Sale Deed in favour of complainant in respect of schedule property within 3 months from the date of this order.
3.  The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
4.  No order as to cost.
5.  Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the 17^th July, 2020)