F.A.No.851/2010 against  C.C.No.81/2009, District Forum,Khammam..    

Between

The Regional Housing Engineer,

A.P.Housing Board,

Warangal, Near Circuit House, T.B.Road,

Subedari. Hanamkonda,

Warangal.                                                    …Appellant/

                                                                     Opp.party

      And

P.Satyanarayana Rao,

S/o. Ranganayakulu,

Aged 62 years, Occ:Pensioner,

 R/o.7-2-252,

Addankivari Veedhi, Khammam.                       … Respondent/

                                                                      Complainant  

Counsel for the Appellant           :     Sri D.Ranganath Kumar

Counsel for the respondent       :        Notice served . None appears.        

QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA,  HON’BLE MEMBER,

       SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER,

                AND

              SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER.                                   

         TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

         (Typed to dictation of   Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

                                                                        ****

        Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.81/2009  on the file of District Forum , Khammam, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant joined in the opposite party Housing  Scheme and paid an amount of Rs.1000/- on 30.8.1982   by submitting his application to the opposite party  for allotment of a house.   As per the circular  dt. 24.9.1991  issued by the  opposite party, the  complainant paid  an amount of Rs.10,435/-  and thus the complainant deposited in total an amount of Rs.11,435/-  with the opposite party .   But inspite of lapse of 18 years period the opposite party did not allot any house  in favour of the complainant  nor returned the deposited amount.  On 1.8.2008  the complainant made representation to the opposite party demanding either to allot the house or to repay deposited amount with interest  but the opposite party failed to respond.   The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.7.8.2009  to the opposite party  and received a reply from the opposite party  alleging that a notification  was issued on 23.2.2001  again on 1.5.2004 informing applicants to take back  the registration and other deposits.   The complainant submits that he  was never communicated with such information by opp.party . The complainant further  submits that having collected the deposit amount the opposite party is under obligation to allot  a house  failing which  they shall have to  inform about the  option to return the deposit and hence there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to  recover deposited amount of Rs.11,435/-  with interest at 24% p.a.  from the date of deposit till the date of realization, to pay Rs.5000/- towards damages and to pay costs.   

        Opposite party filed counter admitting that in response to the Demand Survey Notification issued  by them in the year 1982,  the complainant paid  Rs.1000/- towards registration fee and Rs.10,435/- towards 10% cost of the proposed MIG H0ouse.  Opposite party submits that Demand Survey Notification  issued by them is only an announcement of its proposal to take up a Housing Scheme  at a particular town or city  and not an announcement that they would definitely take up the Housing Scheme at that town or city  and that they have right to decide whether to take up the Scheme or drop the proposal to take up the Scheme based on the response received.  Only after ascertaining that there is sufficient demand, A.P.Housing Board can take up the Housing Scheme and then starts  exercise of acquiring the required land by sending Land Acquisition Proposals to the  Government and to the Land Acquisition Officer for acquiring the land and after taking over the land A.P. Housing Board begins the construction after obtaining sanctioned layout and building permissions and development of the land etc.   On the basis of response to the Demand Survey Notification, A.P.Housing Board identified a suitable land at Dhamsalapuram, Khammam and made every effort for acquisition of the said land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act  but they could not materialize due to severe opposition and legal obstacles from the land owners and hence the opposite party dropped the proposed Scheme at Khammam. The opposite party issued a paper notification on 23.2.2001 asking the applicants to take back their registration fees and other deposits, if any  by duly surrendering the original receipts and submitting attested specimen signatures and advanced stamped receipt.  The opposite party issued another paper notification on 1.5.2004 to take the registration fee and other  deposits on or before 30.6.2004 failing which they will be forfeited to the Board and no further correspondence will be entertained . In response to the same many applicants took back their registration fees and other deposits but the complainant and some others have not taken it back.  Thereafter the notification dt.13.10.2004  was published in the news papers informing that the registration fee and other deposits of the applicants who failed to take them back in response to the said two notifications have been forfeited to the Board. Opp.party submits that the complainant was given sufficient time to take back the amounts deposited by him  and as he failed to do so   there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

        The District Forum based on the evidence adduced  and pleadings put forward  allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund the deposited amounts of Rs.1000/- together with interest @ 18%  p.a from 30.8.1982  and Rs.10,435/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from 19.11.1991 till the date of realization to the complainant and also to pay costs of Rs.1000/-

The facts not in dispute are that the complainant joined in the opposite party scheme and paid an amount of Rs.1000/- on 30.8.1982   by submitting his application to the Housing Board.  Opposite party issued a circular on 24.9.1991 demanding the complainant to pay 10% of the cost of the house and the complainant obliged their demand and paid Rs.10,435/- on 19.11.1991.  It is apparent that the opposite party announced the Scheme in 1982 and took  9  long years in issuing the circular demanding 10% of the cost of house.  The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party contended that the Scheme was not materialized due to severe opposition and legal obstacles from the land owners.   The learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party  contended that the interest at 18% p.a. awarded by the District Forum is excessive and that the Dist. Forum ought to have awarded only simple interest  and relied on the decision of the Apex   Court reported in 4(2005) CPJ 12 (SC) between  Bihar State Housing Board vs. Arun Dakshy   . In this judgement the Apex Court observed that  interest at 5% p.a. as envisaged under Regulation 45 should be awarded and also set aside the compensation amount. Keeping in view the afore mentioned judgement of the Apex Court we modify the order of the Dist Forum with respect to interest only  i.e. we reduce interest from 18% to 5% p.a. while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum with respect to  interest only.  Keeping in view the aforementioned judgement we reduced interest from 18% to 5% while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum and dispose of this appeal with costs of  Rs.1000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                MEMBER

                                                                MEMBER

                                                                MEMBER

Pm*                                                          Dt. 20.12.2011