Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Judicial Member

1.      Both these appears are filed by the original opposite party Nos.1 & 2 against the two identical orders passed on 16.07.2008, by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, in two consumer complaints bearing Nos.220/2008 & 222/2008, by which both the said complaints have been partly allowed.

2.      The common case of the complainants in both the complaints as set out by them in the aforesaid two complaints in brief is as under.

          The opposite party No.1 is a builder & developer.  The opposite party No.1 had offered for various plots of its land of P.H. No.74 and Kh. No.88 of Village Borkhedi.  In pursuance of said offer, the complainants booked the various plots of that land with opposite party No.1 as specified by them in detail in the aforesaid complaints.  They also paid price of the respective plots in instalments to the opposite party No.1 and accordingly, the opposite party No.1 recorded the same in the booklet issued to them by opposite party No.1.  However, the opposite party No.1 did not execute the sale-deeds of those plots in favour of the respective complainants though requests were made to it from time to time by them.  Therefore, the two consumer complaints were filed before the Forum, requesting that direction be given to the opposite parties to handover the possession the plots and execute the sale-deeds of the plots in their favour and if the said plots are not available for sale, then they be directed to refund them the actual cost of the plots as per prevailing market rate with interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay them compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical & mental harassment and cost of Rs.15,000/-.

3.      Both the said complaints were resisted by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 by filing their reply.  The preliminary objection raised by the opposite party is that both the complaints are time barred and are not maintainable before the Forum.  They admitted that they received price of respective plot in instalments from the complainants.  However, it is their submission in brief that the complainants have not paid additional charges required for conversion of the agricultural land for non-agricultural use and therefore, sale-deeds could not be executed. They also submitted that the complaints are also bad in law for non-joinder of the land owner namely Gaffar Ismail Shaikh.  Hence, they had requested that both the complaints may be dismissed with cost.

4.      The Forum below after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought on record passed the two identical impugned orders and thereby partly allowed the complaints.  The Forum made common observations in the impugned orders in brief to the effect that the name of opposite party No.1 has been recorded as owner of the land in question in record of rights in pursuance of the sale-deed of the land obtained by it from the original owner and therefore, the complaints are not bad in law for non-joinder for said original owner. The Forum below also observed that though the complainants have paid full consideration of the respective plots to the opposite parties, they have not executed the sale-deeds of the same in their favour.  Therefore, the Forum directed the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to execute the registered sale-deeds of the respective plots described in the complaints in favour of the respective complainant and the respective complainant shall bear expenses for execution and registration of the said sale-deeds.  The Forum further directed the opposite parties that if they are unable to execute the sale-deeds as above, they shall pay to each of the complainant price of the respective plot as per rate of said land declared by the Government on the date of the said complaint, within 30 days of that order and in case of default, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.  The Forum also directed the opposite parties to pay to each of the complainant compensation of Rs.5,000/- for physical & mental harassment and cost of Rs.2,000/-.

5.      As observed above, both these appeals are filed by the original opposite party Nos.1 & 2 against the said two impugned orders, passed in the said two complaints.  We have heard advocates of both parties and considered Written Notes of Arguments filed by them.  We have also considered copies of the evidence brought on record of the complaints.

6.      The learned advocate of the appellants reiterated the aforesaid case of the appellants as set out before the Forum below and submitted that as the additional charges required for conversion of agricultural use of land to non-agricultural use of land were not paid by the respective complainants / respondents, the sale-deeds could not executed in their favour.  He also submitted that the Forum below erred in entertaining the complaints and thus passed the erroneous orders, which may be set aside.

7.      On the other hand, the learned advocate of the original complainants / respondents herein supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no merit in both these appeals and hence, they may be dismissed.

8.      We find that there is no such agreement entered into between both the parties, by which the complainants / respondents herein were required to pay additional charges for the change of agriculture use into non-agriculture use of the land.  No notice was given by the appellants to the complainants, demanding any such specified additional charges from them.  The Forum has therefore rightly held that it was a sole responsibility of the opposite parties / appellants to seek necessary permission from competent authority for non-agriculture use of land, in question and as they failed to do so, it constitutes deficiency in service on their part.  Moreover, the copies of record of rights produced before the Forum, prove that previous landowner of land Mr Gaffar Ismail Shaikh already sold the land, in question by registered sale-deed to the appellant on 16.08.2005 and name of the appellant No.1 has been also recorded in record of rights as its owner on that basis. Therefore, the objection of the opposite parties / appellants about non-joinder of the necessary party namely Mr Gaffar Ismail Shaikh to both complaints is devoid of substance.

9.      The Forum below has also rightly held on the basis of documents filed on record that the opposite parties / appellants have not executed the sale-deeds though they received full price of respective plots from the complainants / respondents. We also find that the Forum below has rightly entertained both the complaints as filed by the respective complainant as all of them are having common interest in the dispute involved in the said complaints.

10.    We thus, hold that the impugned orders are just, legal & proper and needs no interference in these appeals. Accordingly, following order is passed.

ORDER

i.        Both the appeals, bearing Nos. A/08/735 & A/08/736 are hereby dismissed.

ii.       No order as to costs in both the appeals.

iii.      Copy of the order be supplied to both parties free of cost.