Karnataka

Mysore

cc/659/2014

S.Ashoka, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.Umesh

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

  

 

 

Nature of complaint	:	Deficiency in service
Date of filing of complaint	:	11.04.2014
Date of Issue notice	:	19.04.2014
Date of order	:	15.07.2015
Duration of Proceeding	:	1 year 3 months 4 days

 

 

 

 

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

 

1.     The complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the O.P. for directing the O.P. to issue title deed in his favour in respect of site described in the schedule of the complaint and also to pay the damages for inconvenience of `2,00,000/- and mental agony caused due to the delay in executing the title deed and such other reliefs.
2.     After admission of the complaint, issued notice to the O.P. by RPAD.  In pursuance of the same, the O.P. appeared before this Forum through its counsel.  In this case, O.P. did not file its version.  Hence, the case was posted for filing of affidavit of complainant.
3.     The complainant filed his affidavit, in lieu of his evidence and also produced several documents to support his case and closed his evidence.  O.P. did not file his affidavit also.  Hence, the case is posted for hearing arguments.
4.     Complainant filed his written arguments and then posted the case for orders.
5.     In view of the contentions taken by the complainant and the arguments submitted, the points that arise for our consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant prove that he is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
2. What order?

 

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

Point No.1 :- Partly in the Affirmative

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

 

:: R E A S O N S ::

 

7.    Point No.1:- From the pleadings of the complainant and the material on record, clearly discloses that the only dispute between the party in respect of issuing the title deed in respect of the site of the complainant.  The material on record clearly discloses that on the basis of the letter of allotment of site the O.P. has already executed the lease cum sale agreement and also issued the possession certificate, khata certificate and licences for the construction of the house.  The material placed on record by the complainant further discloses that on the basis of licence given by the O.P.  The complainant already put up a house in site No.38 situated in Block No.22 of the Madhuvana Layout and the MCC has issued C.R. and fixed property tax as per Rules and Regulations and the complainant is in physical possession and enjoyment of the house paying the property taxes to the MCC.  The material on record shows that the O.P. has already issued the title deed to several other allottees of the sites in the same Block No.22 of Madhuvana Layout, 2^nd Stage, Srirampura, Mysuru. Further, the endorsement issued by the O.P. dated 31.08.2009, clearly shows that, issue of title deed has been temporarily stayed.
8.    Apart from the above, the complainant also relied on the orders passed by this Forum in complaint No.113/2009 dated 09.07.2009.  Hence, under these facts and circumstances, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the O.P. in refusing to issue the title deed as sought for in the complaint.  As per the Rules and Regulations of allotment of sites, the O.P. is expected to verify the actual position before issuing such documents to the allottees.  Hence, at this stage, the O.P. cannot take such a stand, after issuing various documents to the allottees of sites in Block No.22, Madhuvana 2^nd Stage, Srirampura, Mysuru.  Thus, we are of the opinion that on the principle of parity, the complainant also entitled for the title deed as that of the other allottees, in respect of their sites situated in the same Block No.22, Madhuvana Layout, 2^nd Stage, Srirampura, Mysuru, as sought for in the complaint.  Thus, the O.P. is liable for issuing title deed as sought for in the complaint.
9.    In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the complainant succeeded in establishing his case, that he is entitled for the title deed from the O.P.   Consequently, we answer the point No.1 in partly affirmative.
10.  Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and findings recorded on point No.1, we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed in part, as stated above against the O.P in the ends of justice.  Hence, in the final result, we proceed to pass the following

 

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
2. The O.P. is directed to issue title deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the schedule site, as sought for in the complaint within a period of three months from the date of this order.
3. The O.P. is directed to pay compensation of `5,000/- towards mental agony and `2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 15^th day of July 2015)

 

 

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

 

 

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMARA.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER