CC Filed on 30.10.2007<br /> Disposed on 30.07.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 30th Day of July 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.207/2007<br /> <br /> Sri. K.Anantharaju,<br /> S/o late Krishnamaraju,<br /> Aged about 68 years,<br /> Residing at Gulpet,<br /> Kolar Town. Complainant <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. A.V.Ananda & Others)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Commissioner,<br /> Kolar City Municipality,<br /> Kolar – 563 101. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> (OP By Advocate Sri. T.Amarendra & Others) <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to issue the sale certificate in favour of complainant in respect of the property described in the complaint, with compensation, costs etc., <br /> <br /> 2. The description of the property in question described in the complaint is as follows: Vacant site measuring east – west 66 feet north-south 42 feet and another adjoining bit measuring east-west 8 feet and north-south 80 feet out of old Assessment No.342 and New Assessment <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.207/2007<br /> No.48 (property No.8) situated at Ward No.7 Gulpet, Kolar Town with the fallowing boundaries East-Complainant’s own property in Assessment No.667, West-Property of Ramaraju and his brother, North-by Feeder Channel, South-by Somapur Road and after that Government Quarters.<br /> <br /> The complainant has alleged that he applied to the OP for allotment of the said site at upset price in the year 1966, since the complainant being the adjoining site owner and that the OP placed this request in the meeting of municipal council dated 30.11.1966 and the council resolved to sell the said site to this complainant for Rs.1,000/-. On 07.12.1966 the complainant paid the cost of site Rs.1,000/- through cheque and the OP realized the said cheque on 09.12.1966 and delivered possession of the site on the same day. It is further alleged that till today the OP has not issued the sale certificate or registered the said site in favour of complainant inspite of repeated demands from time to time and that finally on 03.09.2007 the complainant got issued legal notice to execute the regular sale deed and inspite of it the OP failed to comply with it. It is alleged that the pretense of OP that Government approval is not yet received for executing the sale deed, has no meaning as no approval by Government for sale of property of less than Rs.5,000/- is required. Therefore the complainant alleged that there is deficiency of service and he claimed for a direction to issue sale certificate to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is alleged that the cause of action for filing the complaint finally arose from non-compliance of the request made in the legal notice dated 03.09.2007. <br /> <br /> 3. The OP appeared and contested the proceedings and filed the version. The OP contended that the complainant has created and <br /> <br /> CC No.207/2007<br /> concocted the documents for filing this complaint and that the complainant is a stranger to the property in question and that the complaint is barred by time and he denied all other allegations made in the complaint. Further it is contended that the alleged resolution made by municipal council merely recommends for grant of site, but does not grant the site itself and that the recommendation for grant of site must be approved by Government and as such the claim of the complainant is liable to be rejected. It is contended that the site in question is in possession of OP and a suit in O.S. 184/2007 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kolar for the relief of permanent injection against the OP was filed by complainant, when the OP has started construction of a building for the need of public at large with the assistance of funds of Member of Parliament Kolar Lokasabha Constituency. Therefore the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence and documents. The OP has not filed any affidavit or any document. Both parties filed written argument. We also heard the learned counsel for the parties. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> 1) Whether there is deficiency of service by OP?<br /> 2) If point No.1 is held in affirmative, to which relief the <br /> complainant is entitled?<br /> 3) What Order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the evidence and records and submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as fallows:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.207/2007<br /> POINT No.1: The OP contended that previous sanction of the Government is necessary in the present case to complete the transaction and that there was only a recommendation for giving the site to complainant and there was no grant of site itself by the resolution relied upon by the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant contended otherwise.<br /> <br /> Section 72(1) & (2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 is as follows:<br /> 72. Competency of municipal council to lease, sell and contract: (1) Subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in sub-sections(2) to (9), and such other restrictions and conditions as the Government may be general or special orders specify, every municipal council shall be competent to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which belongs to, or for the purpose of this Act has been acquired by it, and so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of this Act, to enter into and perform all such contracts as it may consider necessary or expedient in order to carry into effect the said provisions and purposes.<br /> (2) No free grant of immovable property whatever may be its value, no grant for an upset price and no lease for a term exceeding five years, and no sale or other transfer of immovable property exceeding[Twenty-five thousand rupees] in value, shall be valid unless the previous sanction of the Government is obtained.<br /> (3) ………. to …….. (9) not necessary.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.207/2007<br /> The reading of sub section (2) of section 72 of the Act makes it clear that no grant of immovable property whatever may be its value and no grant for an upset price of immovable property shall be valid unless the previous sanction of the Government is obtained. Only in the case of sale or other transfer of immovable property not exceeding Twenty Five Thousand Rupees (Five Thousand Rupees prior to the amendment substituted by Act No.33 of 1986 with effect from 06.06.1986), the previous sanction of the Government is not necessary. <br /> <br /> In the present case the complainant has alleged that the site in question was allotted to him for upset price of Rs.1,000/- by resolution dated 30.11.1966. Therefore it can be said that it is a grant for an upset price and irrespective of its value the previous sanction of the Government is necessary. Therefore it is not material to consider whether the resolution dated 30.11.1966 merely recommends for grant of site or through this resolution itself a grant is made. <br /> <br /> The learned counsel for complainant relied upon the decision cited in ILR 2000 Karnataka 4777 between S.Puttaswamy V/s Municipality Mandya and another. In this case the question of allotting or grant of a site for upset price has not come for consideration. Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules 1966, provides for public notice in any manner before sale or disposal of municipal property. It appears in the present case only on the application of complainant for allotment of site the grant was made. Therefore we hold that the said decision is not helpful to complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.207/2007<br /> The OP has denied the existence of resolution dated 30.11.1966 alleged by complainant. A Xerox copy of the said resolution is produced by the complainant. The OP has not produced any written material to show that on the said date no such resolution was passed. If really such resolution was not passed on that day the very resolution book relating to that period should have been produced by it. Therefore existence of such resolution can be believed. It can also be seen that as per complainant he paid Rs.1,000/- through cheque dated 07.12.1966 and the same was realized by OP-Municipality on 09.12.1966. In that respect also Xerox copy of the account extract shown to have been issued by OP is produced. In the absence of any other evidence this account extract can also be believed. Therefore one can say that there was resolution dated 30.11.1966. The said resolution states that the site in question was recommended for grant for Rs.1,000/-. In that event the OP should have sent the resolution or the required request letter to Government for previous sanction for validating the said transaction. It appears there might be deficiency in service in that respect if no such step is taken by the OP. However this is not the grievance of the complainant. The complainant requested for issue of a direction to issue sale certificate in respect of the site in question in his favour thinking that there is an absolute legal grant or allotment by the OP. As noticed above the grant being for an upset price the previous sanction of the Government is necessary. For the above reasons we hold point No.1 in negative. <br /> <br /> POINT No2: As point No.1 is held in negative, point No.2 does not arise for consideration. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> POINT No.3: Hence we pass the following:<br /> O R D E R <br /> The complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 30th day of July 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />