In the above noted cases the complainants have made allegations against the same OP for identical cause of action and subject matter and hence the cases were heard at a time and clubbed together for a common order.

1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainants are that the OP launched a housing project at village Kaki-Sunabeda over Plot No.161 under Khata No.132/1 which was completed in the year 1985 but the housing units could not be sold for over 13 years and remained abandoned.  It is the common case of the complainants that the OP sold the housing  units in the year 1998 as stated in the table below by accepting the initial amount on as is where is basis and the complainants repaired the houses at their own costs.

2.                     It is submitted that the complainants requested the OP to register the house in their favour but the OP could not register the house for which complainants did not pay the instalments and they could know that there is dispute over the ownership of the site with Tahasildar, Pottangi and the OP has not acquired the title over the land where the housing unit were constructed.   It is also submitted that the complainants are not willful defaulters and had tried to convince the OP and its officials but the OP is not ready to register the house units in favour of the complainants.  It is also the common allegation of the complainants that the OP during the month of December, 2014 has demanded huge amount from them towards cost of the housing units whereas the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in WP © No.3788/2011 has observed that “Payment of full amount should not be insisted upon before transfer of the land and house” decided between Shibashankar Khemundu Vrs. The Secretary, OSHB, Bhubaneswar.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, they have filed these cases praying the Forum to direct the OP to register the land and house in favour of complainants without demanding interest and enhanced price and to pay suitable compensation and costs to the complainants.

3.                     The OP filed similar counter to all the cases denying the allegations of the complainants and contended that the Forum under C. P. Act has no jurisdiction to entertain these cases which are to be tried by Civil Courts.  It is also contended that the houses were allotted to the complainant on 30.06.1998 on “as is where is basis” and the complainants took over the physical possession of the same without any objection but after several reminders the complainant are not executing the agreement with the OP with some mala fide intentions.  It is also further contended that out of 232 nos. of houses constructed in different categories, 66 Nos. of allottees have paid the full cost of the houses and their loan accounts have been closed.  Denying complaints of allotment of land, the OP contended that under the instant scheme, the land has been duly allotted by the State Government and other formalities are with the district administration, Koraput.  The OP also further contended that after deposit of initial money the complainants have taken possession of the houses but after several reminders they have not executed agreement with the OP and finding no other way the complainants have been intimated on 15.12.2014 for payment of updated dues/final settlement of the houses as on 31.12.2014 but the complainants without depositing the amount have filed this case.  Thus denying any fault on its part the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants with costs.

4.                     The complainants have filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In these cases, allotment of houses in favour of the complainants during the year 1998 on “as is where in basis” and the acceptance of initial amounts by the OP is an admitted fact.  It is a common allegation of the complainants that they requested the OP to register the houses in their names in terms of agreement but the OP did not do so and hence the complainant did not pay the rest of the dues but the OP during December, 2014 demanded a huge amount towards cost of the houses from the complainants.

6.                     The OP in its counter denying the allegations of the complainants challenged the maintainability of these cases and stated that after 17 years of allotment of houses, the complainants have come up with these cases and hence the cases are hit under limitation.  Before going into the other merits of these cases, we would like to consider the issue regarding limitation at the first instance.

7.                     On perusal of record it is seen that the houses have been provisionally allotted to the complainants in the year 1998.  In the said allotment letter, the complainants were requested to contact the Asst. Land-cum-Administrative Officer, OSHB, Koraput to execute the agreement.  It is also seen that the OP has also reminded the complainants in the year 2001 for execution of agreement in respect of their houses.  It is noticed that the complainant in C.C. No.10/2015 has made lot of correspondences with the OP for execution of agreement in the year, 2001 and also has signed the agreement papers.  From the above facts it was ascertained that the cause of action in the above cases arose in between the year 1998 and 2001 and the cases should have been filed within 2 years of arising of cause of action.

8.                     The Learned A/R for the complainants submitted that in spite of all efforts by the complainants, the OP could not register the houses due to land dispute with State Government.  Objecting the demand of OP of huge amount from the complainants during December, 2014, the A/R for the complainant relied a decision of Orissa High Court where the Hon’ble Court has observed that “payment of full amount should not be insisted upon before transfer of the land and house”.  In view of above facts, these cases required lot of things to be examined and hence it is a case of civil nature.  Further the demand letter of OP during December, 2014 will not help the complainants to extend limitation because once period of limitation starts; it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondences between the parties.  As such the complainant petitions need to be dismissed for want of limitation.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complainant petitions are dismissed as barred by limitation u/s.24A of C. P. Act, 1986.  However, the complainants are at liberty to approach a competent Court for redressal of their grievances.  No orders as to costs.

(to dict.)