Date of Filing:18.09.2007<br /> Date of Order: 25.04.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1937 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> N. Sathyamurthy,<br /> “Gurukrupa”,<br /> No.76, 57th Cross, 4th Block,<br /> Rajajinagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 010. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Commissioner,<br /> Bangalore Development Authority,<br /> Kumarapark (West)<br /> Bangalore-560 020. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that, he was employed in Kolar Gold Mines, KGF. He purchased revenue site in Gorguntepalya under registered sale deed on 9th May-1959 for a sum of Rs.350/-. Land Acquisition Officer of the CITB, Bangalore issued a notice dated 27/8/1965 informing about acquisition of the site for industrial purposes. He has not taken any compensation and not been given alternative site. The matter is pending for over 48 years. Complainant states that he will be glad if the Forum recommends to the concerned for allotment of site measuring 30 X 40 feet in any of the layouts in Bangalore.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defense version stating that, after hearing the complainant final notification was passed in the year 1964 and award was passed and possession of the property was taken on 24/12/1969 by the BDA. The amount of compensation was deposited in the Civil Court on 12/6/1970. Complainant is making repeated representation for allotment of alternative site. His request has not been considered. Compensation amount was deposited in the Civil Court under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Complainant is not a consumer under the opposite party. Complaint is not maintainable. Hence the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. By reading the complaint, it is very clear that the complainant purchased revenue site in the year 1959 and the Government had acquired the land in question in the year 1965 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. As per the opposite party the compensation amount had been deposited in the Civil Court in the year 1970. Therefore, it is up to the complainant to approach the Civil Court and to get the compensation amount in respect of his plot. The representation given by the complainant for grant of alternative site had been rejected by the opposite party. The complaint is barred by time. The complainant has sought that this Forum can recommend the opposite party for allotment of alternative site. This type of relief cannot be granted by this Forum. The powers of the Forum are limited. The complainant has to get the relief only from the opposite party and rightly had given representation to the opposite party for allotment of alternative site, but unfortunately his request was not considered by the opposite party. Therefore, at this stage the present Fora cannot grant any relief to the complainant. It is true that complainant is a senior citizen. He is a retired employee of Kolar Gold Mines, but the Forum is not in a position in law to grant any relief to the complainant. The Forum has also no power or authority in law to recommend the BDA to allot alternative site to the complainant. So, under these circumstances, the complaint is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2008.<br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />