JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The complainants/respondents are the members of the petitioner Society.  They made payment to the petitioner Society in the years 2006 and 2007 for allotment of residential sites in a project namely Brahmananda Sagra in Ilvala village Mysore.  Their grievance is that despite collecting payment from them way back in the years 2006 and 2007 no allotment of any residential site was made to them.  The complainants, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints seeking refund of the amount which they had paid to the petitioner Society along-with compensation etc.

2.      The complaints were resisted by the Society which admitted the payment received from the complainant for allotment of sites in Brahmananda Sagra.  It was inter alia stated in the written version that the society had acquired land in Ilvala village and Hobli for developing the residential sites and had got the layout approved but, in the year 2016 Government of Karnataka notified some land for industrial zone and, therefore, the Developers approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka seeking an order notifying the land as residential.  It was further stated in the written version that because of acquisition, notification, de-notification, re-notification and re-denotification, etc., it took long time to get the revenue record transferred in the name of the Developers.  It was further stated that the land acquired by the Developers for the said layout in Ilvala village had been included in the industrial category in the comprehensive development plan of MUDA.  It was also stated that the Developers had filed Writ Petitions which are pending before the  Hon’ble High Court.  The Society, therefore, issued a notice in the year 2013 informing that because of delay in forming the layout of Brahmananda Sagra it had started formation of another layout namely Kuvempu Sagar layout and it would allot the sites in Kuvempu Sagar layout instead of Brahmananda Sagra layout.  It was also stated in the written version that the petitioner was ready to allot the site to the complainant.

3.      The District Forum allowed the consumer complaints and directed refund of the amount received by the petitioner from the complainants along-with interest @ 10% p.a. with nominal compensation and nominal cost of litigation.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner Society approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals.  The appeals having been dismissed the petitioner is before this Commission.

4.      It is an admitted position that the petitioner Society collected price of the residential sites from the complainants way back in the year 2006-2007.  It is also admitted position that the payment was collected for allotment of residential sites in the project Brahmananda Sagra in Ilvala village Mysore.  It is also an admitted position that till date no residential sites in the project namely Brahmananda Sagra in Ilvala Mysore has been allotted by the society to the complainants. 

5.      A perusal of the written version filed before the District Forum would show that the Society had clearly stated in its written version that it had informed the members in the year 2013 that because of delay in forming the layuout of Brahmananda Sagra it would allot sites in Kuvempu instead of Brahmananda Sagra.  The complainants having paid for allotment of sites in Brahmananda Sagra cannot be compelled to accept the allotment of residential sites in Kuvempu Sagar.  In any case even in Kuvempu Sagar no allotment till date has been made to the complainants though the price of the sites was paid by them way back in the year 2006 and 2007. 

6.      The Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that in the written version the Society had expressed willingness to allot the sites in Brahmananda Sagra.  However, in my opinion, the offer made in the written version cannot be read as an offer to allot the sites in Brahmananda Sagra. This offer, in my opinion, can be read only as an offer to allot sites in Kuvempu Sagar.  In any case, as noted earlier no allotment till date has been made to the complainants either in Brahmananda Sagra or in Kuvempu Sagar though about 13-14 years have expired since the price of the site was collected by the petitioner Society from the complainants.   

7.      The Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Commission,  in some cases, asked the members of the Society to visit the site and see whether they are ready to accept the position.  In my opinion, even if some members of the Society are ready and willing to wait for the allotment the complainants who paid for the residential sites about 13-14 years ago cannot be made to wait indefinitely and, therefore, the District Forum was fully justified in directing refund of the amount which the petitioner had received from the complainants along-with compensation in the form of interest.  A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan & Connected Matter (2019) 5 SCC 725 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra II (2019) CPJ 29 (SC). 

8.      For the reasons stated, hereinabove, the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petitions, are, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs.