DATE OF FILING : 24-12-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 14-03-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29-09-2014.
Sri Biswajit Datta,
son of late Meghnath Datta,
residing at 24/2, Paran Chandra Das Road,
P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah. ---------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Sri Bimal Kumar Pandit,
2. Sri Ratan Kumar Pandit,
both sons of late Pannalal Pandit,
residing at 19/A, Ichapur Road, P.S. Bantra,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 1.
3. Sri Swapan Kumar Mukherjee,
son of late Sisir Kumar Mukherjee,
residing at 11, Biseswar Banerjee Lane, P.S. Bantra,
District Howrah,
PIN – 711101.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register the deed of sale in respect of the schedule mentioned flat after receiving the balance consideration and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of receiving the major portion of the agreed amount did not execute and register the sale deed.
2. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in their written version contended interalia that the sale deed could not be executed as one writ petition was filed by the complainant and others and as it transpires that some illegal construction was made.
3. The o.p. no. 3 in his written version contended interalia that as the Hon’ble Court directed demolition of the illegal and unauthorized construction the deed could not be executed.
3. Upon pleadings of parties the following point arose for determination :
Whether the complaint is maintainable in its form ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Admittedly the complainant is in possession of the suit ( A schedule property ) measuring 300 sq. ft. by virtue of the possession letter dated 23-11-2012 vide agreement dated 03-09-2010. Admittedly the complainant paid Rs. 3,93,000/- to the o.p. no. 3 out of the total consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/-. On repeated requests the o.ps. did not execute and register the deed of conveyance.
5. In the mean time one Writ Petition being no. 10815 ( W ) of 2013 was filed by Prabhat Kr. Mondal and Biswajit Dutt. The complainants of this complaint and of the complaint being no. 463 of 2013 respectively and 4 others against Howrah Municipal Corporation and 5 others.
6. In disposing of the writ petition Hon’ble Court directed demolition of the unauthorized construction citing this observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court and observed that the petitioners who are in possession of the respective flat may claim refund of the price with interest.
7. In view of the such clear direction we are of the view that the instant complaint cannot have any leg to stand upon. The complainant is only entitled to the refund of the price of the flat with interest.
The point is accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 463 of 2013 ( HDF 463 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed in part as against the o.p. no. 3 and dismissed as against the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 on contest.
The O.P. no. 3 be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 3,93,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ of Rs. 10% p.a. from the date of receipt of the same i.e., 03-09-2010 till full satisfaction within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. do further pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and utter frustration within the period as directed above.
No order as to costs.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
