Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/49/2013

N.Venkatasiva Reddy,S/o. N.Rajasekhar Reddy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Vice Chairman,Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA), - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ajeya Kumar

16 Sep 2016

ORDER

Date of first filing: 20.08.2013

Date of first disposal:17.01.2014

Matter remanded and case restored on :02.02.2016

Date of disposal :16.09.2016

 

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.49/2013

 

 

Between

 

N.Venkatasiva Reddy,

S/o. N.Rajasekhar Reddy,

Hindu, aged 53 years,

D.No.6-7-609, Gayathri Apartments,

Sripuram Colony,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

The Vice Chairman,

Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA),

Tirupati.                                                                                             …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 01.09.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.Ajey Kumar, counsel for complainant, and Ms.M.Vani, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section - 12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs against the opposite party 1) to direct the opposite party to issue proceedings of approval to the complainant for his LRS application No.627/2008, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay compensation to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service and for mental agony and harassment and 3) to award costs of the complaint.

            2.  This case earlier on 17.01.2014 was allowed directing the opposite party to issue proceedings approval of the complainant for his LRS No.627/2008 within 15 days and also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and punitive damages to the complainant within 15 days failing which opposite party shall also liable to pay interest at 9% p.a. till realization, opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. The opposite party aggrieved by the order dt:17.01.2014, in this case, preferred appeal in F.A.No.236/2014 before the Hon’ble State Commission, wherein their Lordships of Hon’ble State Commission, allowed the appeal, set aside the order dt:17.01.2014 and the case is remanded for fresh consideration after giving notices and offering opportunity to both parties, in the light of the documents marked before the Hon’ble State Commission as Exs.A13, A14 and Exs.B1 to B12.    

            3. The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant purchased 2397.76 sq.meters of site in “Anuraga Layout” in Sy.No.170/2 under registered sale deed bearing document No.1689 dt:02.03.2005. That the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed a G.O. for regularization of lands under “Land Regularization Scheme”. The complainant on 02.07.2008 applied for LRS, his application was numbered as LRS No.627/2008. He paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of D.D. bearing No.545547 dt:23.06.2008 towards application penal charges. He also paid another sum of Rs.12,670/- through D.D.No.545548 dt:23.06.2008 towards Open Space Cost. Original challan of 2008 is misplaced, but it is evidenced in the proceedings of the opposite party dt:04.10.2012.

            4.  That as per the request of the opposite party, the complainant paid Rs.4,87,450/- on 29.09.2011 vide challan No.2805 towards the balance penal charges on 27.12.2011. He also paid Rs.20/- towards open space cost vide challan No.4010 dt:27.12.2011. That the complainant also paid another amount of Rs.45,250/- under challan No.2807 dt:29.09.2011 towards conversion charges. Thus, the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.6,76,740/- with opposite party for regularization of his land situated in Tirupati urban limits, along with his application dt:02.07.2008. The complainant submitted valuation certificate issued by S.R.O., F.M.B Sketch and Lay Out Sketch etc., but the opposite party having received all the documents and collected Rs.6,76,740/-, so far, did not regularize his land. The complainant also complied with the queries raised by the opposite party.

            5.  The complainant approached the opposite party several times in this regard, but the opposite party did not give approval. On 28.06.2012, the opposite party issued a letter intimating that his claim is rejected on the ground that the same is agricultural land. That the complainant brought to the notice of the authorities by writing a letter dt:30.06.2011 stating that they have collected Rs.45,250/- as conversion charges for converting the agricultural land into non-agricultural one and that there are several houses in Survey No.170 of Chennayagunta village and that there are no agricultural lands in Tirupati Urban Mandal, as such refusal is unjust. The opposite party maintained silence inspite of his letter dt:30.06.2011. The Planning Officer, Building Inspector demanding amounts for regularization of his land, as the complainant refused to pay the amounts, his land was not regularized and finally on 04.10.2012 another proceedings was issued by the opposite party rejecting the application of the complainant. The opposite party having received Rs.6,76,740/- for regularization of the layout, rejecting the same belatedly amounts to deficiency in service. That the complainant is of strong opinion that his plan was rejected only on the ground that he has not satisfied the illegal demands of the staff of the opposite party. The complainant caused demand notice through registered post calling upon the opposite party to regularize his land, the opposite party having received the notice neither gave reply nor regularized his land. Hence the complaint.

            6.  The opposite party filed his written version admitting that the complainant has purchased the site as stated supra, his application LRS No.627/2008 under Layout Regularization Scheme on 02.07.2008, and payment of altogether a sum of Rs.6,76,740/- on different dates commencing from 23.06.2008 till 29.09.2011 and submitting the valuation certificate, F.M.B. Sketch and Layout Sketch is true, and denied the other allegations in the complaint from para.4 to 10. The opposite party further contended that application of the complainant for regularization of his land was rejected as per the guidelines and mandates in the relevant G.O(s) on the ground that the land is an agricultural land and is not eligible for Layout Regularization Scheme. It further specifically admitted that the opposite party has informed the complainant to pay Rs.45,250/- towards conversion charges since the site was classified as agriculture use as per the master plan in G.O.MSy.No.148/MA, dt:21.03.2005. The opposite party issued proceedings dt:04.10.2012 for refund of open space cost of Rs.1,33,840/- and conversion charges of Rs.45,250/- and also penal fee of Rs.4,47,975/-, totaling Rs.6,27,065/- and a cheque for the said amount was sent to the complainant by the opposite party through registered post with acknowledgement due, but it was returned twice as unclaimed. That there are no buildings in Sy.No.170 of Chennayagunta village, and there are several buildings situated in approved layouts in Sy.No.171, 172, 173 and 181 of Chennayagunta village, which are adjacent to Sy.No.170. Those layouts were approved by the authority in Roc.No.23/G1/1997. As the application of the complainant was not as per the terms of the said G.O alone, it was rejected (G.O. was not referred to). Conversion charges payable to the authority is different from the payment that has to be made to get land converted from agriculture to non-agricultural use. Hence the LRS application was rejected on the said ground.

            7.  This case does not attract the provisions of C.P.Act, as the regularization process cannot be equated that of a service provided by the opposite party. It is not a consumer dispute. There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant purchased property, which was not duly approved by the authority, and on account of such latches, he is bound to pay penalization charges to get the same regularized. This case is not a fit case for regularization, as such it was rejected. The act of regularization is a discretionary act guided by the principles of Law and the same cannot be enforced by the Forum, as it would amount to breaking of established principles Law applicable to the case on hand and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            8.  In support of his case, the complainant himself filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A22. For the opposite party R.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit and no documents were marked on its behalf. Both the counsel have filed their respective written arguments.

            9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            (iii). To what relief?

            10.  Point No.(i):-  to answer this point, we have to state that there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the complainant over the land in an extent of 2397.76 sq. meters. in Anuraga Layout in Sy.No.170/2. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has made an application for LRS on 02.07.2008 for getting his land regularization and his application No.627/2008. There is no dispute that the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.6,76,740/- to the opposite party as required and it is also not in dispute that as per the request of the opposite party, the complainant paid Rs.4,87,450/- on 29.09.2011 vide challan No.2805 towards the balance penal charges, and also it is not in dispute that the complainant has paid Rs.1,21,150/- towards balance of open space cost vide challan No.2806 dt:29.09.2011. The opposite party also admitted that the complainant in total paid a sum of Rs.6,76,740/- for the purpose of getting his land regularized under LRS introduced by the Government.

            11.  Having admitted all these facts. The opposite party did not approve the plan submitted by the complainant and also did not regularize the land. The specific contention of the opposite party for rejecting the application of the complainant under LRS No.627/2008 is that the land purchased by the complainant in Sy.No.170/2 is an agricultural land. Therefore, it cannot be regularized and also specifically contended that conversion charges payable to the authority is different from the payment that has to be made to get land converted from agriculture to non-agricultural use. But, for the reasons best known, the opposite party did not specify the distinction between those two sentences. If the conversion charges are different from that of the payment, that has to be made to get the land converted from agriculture to non-agriculture use, for what purpose the opposite party has collected a sum of Rs.45,250/- towards “conversion charges”. Under the said head “conversion charges” what is to be converted and whether such conversion was acted upon, then at subsequent stage an amount of Rs.45,250/- was ordered to be refunded to the complainant. When the complainant made his application for regularization of his land in Sy.No.170/2 of Chennayagunta village on 02.07.2008, why it was kept pending till 2012 i.e. for about 4 years. When the application was made on 02.07.2008 itself, it ought to have been scrutinized and if it is found that the land covered by the application of the complainant is not eligible for regularization, it ought to have been informed to the complainant at the earliest stage. For rejecting the application of the complainant under LRS No.627/2008, does it need a period of 4 years for the opposite party?

12. If the land covered by the application under LRS No.627/2008 do not deserves regularization, why subsequently the opposite party has collected huge amount to a tune of Rs.6,76,740/- on different dates i.e. firstly a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of D.D. bearing No.545547 on 23.06.2008, another sum of Rs.12,670/- through D.D. No.545548 dt:23.06.2008, another sum of Rs.4,87,450/- on 29.09.2011 (i.e. about 3 years after the application is made) vide challan No.2805 dt:29.09.2011, again a sum of Rs.300/- on 27.12.2011, and another sum of Rs.1,21,150/- vide challan No.2806 dt:29.09.2011, and Rs.20/- vide challan No.4010 dt:27.12.2011 etc. and also another sum of Rs.45,250/- under challan No.2807 dt:29.09.2011 towards conversion charges. When the land is not fit for conversion into non-agricultural use, why the opposite party has collected this amount of Rs.45,250/- on 29.09.2011. All these procedures adopted by the opposite party for a period of 4 years, making the complainant to believe that his application would be considered and his land will be regularized and finally rejecting his application stating that the land is an agricultural land and it is not fit for conversion on 04.10.2012, it appears that there are latches on the part of opposite party in keeping the application pending for about 4 years and later rejecting his application. The opposite party is expected to well aware of the land in Sy.No.170 of Chennayagunta village, is whether an agricultural land or non-agricultural land by the time of application made by the complainant on 02.07.2008 itself.  The opposite party has got sufficient manpower to place the entire facts before the opposite party for consideration before issuing application number LRS No.627/2008. It is not the case of opposite party that the application was made to the opposite party while the land was an agricultural and suppressing the same the complainant has made his application for regularization. In the written version, nowhere cited any G.O. issued in this regard with a specific guidelines for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural use or specific guidelines under what circumstances agricultural land cannot be converted into non-agricultural use, and it is also not the case of opposite party that subsequent to the application made by the complainant in LRS No.627/2008, Government has issued any proceedings not to convert agricultural land into non-agricultural use. The Land Regularization Scheme itself is meant for regularizing the unauthorized layouts or illegal constructions, when such is the case, we do not find any reasons in the contention of the opposite party to reject the application of the complainant.

            13.  The complainant very categorically mentioned that his land is situated in Sy.No.170/2 of Chennayagunta village. In the same survey number another applications for regularization were accepted by the opposite party and those applications were considered and regularization proceedings were issued as shown in Ex.A22. According to Ex.A22 L.P.No.34/G1/2014 in Roc.No.3932/G1/2013 dt:10.10.2014, “the application of Sri.K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy and others for approval of layout in Sy.No.169/2 and 170/2 of Channayagunta village, Settipalli Panchayath, Tirupati Urban Mandal in an extent of 4.851 acres of land has been examined with the provisions of A.P.Urban Area (Dev.) Act 1975 and also in accordance with the Statutory Master Plan / Zonal Development Plan along with the existing Government orders, Rules and Regulations which are in force, as the applicant has fulfilled all the layout conditions, the layout is hereby approved in L.P.No.34/G1/2014 and is hereby communicated subject to the following conditions”. So, it is clear that in the same Sy.No.170/2 of Chennayagunta village, when another application is filed for regularization as his land in an extent of 4.851 acres situated in Chennayagunta village, by the applicant Sri.K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy and others, the same opposite party has approved their regularization and issued proceedings under Ex.A22. Under Ex.A21 another application made by Sri.D.Krishnamraju and others, final layout is approved by the opposite party in D.Dis.L.P.No.23/G1/97 dt:05.11.1999, order is as follows – vide reference 3^rd cited Sri.D.Krishnamraju and others has / have requested for final confirmation orders of layout in Sy.No.17/1P, 172P, 173P, 181P of Chennayagunta village, having an extent of 11.70 acres, which was tentatively approved in the reference 2^nd cited. The same has been examined with referene to the layout rules. The layout plan submitted by the applicant is satisfying the layout rules. The applicant has handed over the roads and public open space to the Local Authority by way of gift deed (gift deed number kept blank, date kept blank) The Sarpanch, Settipalli Panchayat has taken over the possession of the roads and public open space vide resolution No.(nil) dt:21.10.1999. The final layout is approved in an extent of 11.70 acres having an area of 3.52 acres under roads, 1.20 acres of area under park and 6.97 acres under plots. Total number of plots 134. The final layout is approved under Section-14 of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act 1975 subject to the following conditions …………In Sy.No.(s) 17/1P, 172P, 173P, 181P of Chennayagunta village an extent of 11.70 acres were approved for the layout long back by 05.11.1999 itself.

14.  The master plan submitted by the opposite party shows that Draft Master Plan, TUDA Region approved by the Government in G.O.MSy.No.148 M.A. dt:21.03.2005. This plan shows that Sy.No.170 of Chennayagunta village also approved in March 2005 itself. If Sy.No.170 consists of any agricultural land, the master plan ought not have prepared and approved by the Government When Sy.No.170 was already approved for layout, the application filed by the applicant is also under Sy.No.170/2, the application ought to have considered and approved the layout plan submitted by the complainant and regularize the land covered by the application by the complainant in LRS No.627/2008. In the same Sy.No.170/2 of Chennayagunta village, another applicant Sri.K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy filed application for regularization to an extent of 4.851 acres of land and it was approved by the opposite party on 10.10.2014. Whereas in the same survey number, when the complainant filed his application in the year 2008, it was kept pending till 2012, for a long period of 4 years and finally it was rejected. Nowhere in the written version or evidence affidavit of R.W.1 or even in the written arguments filed on behalf of the opposite party, an extent of land in Sy.No.170 or 170/2 was mentioned. Then the oppose party ought to have assign cogent reasons for not considering the application of the complainant for conversion of his land in Sy.No.170/2. The opposite party when approved the layout plan for regularization of land submitted by another party by name K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy under Sy.No.170/2, also ought to have been considered the application made by the complainant for his land for regularization in order to avoid the allegations against the opposite party and also in order to avoid the attribution of disparate or bias. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that opposite party having collected an amount of Rs.6,76,740/- from the complainant and keeping the application of the complainant in LRS No.627/2008 pending for a long period of 4 years, the opposite party ought not have rejected his application, having accepted the application of K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy for regularization of his land in 4.851 acres in one and the same Sy.No.170/2 of Channayagunta village. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there are some latches on the part of opposite party in rejecting the application of the complainant made on 02.07.2008, appears to be depriving the rights of the complainant by using so called discretionary powers of the opposite party without assigning cogent reasons, amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service Accordingly this point is answered.

            15.  Point No.(ii):-  The learned counsel for complainant while advancing arguments, categorically argued that when there is no dispute with regard to ownership of complainant over the land submitted for regularization in Sy.No.170/2 of Chennayagunta village on 02.07.2008 and when the opposite party has collected a huge amount of Rs.6,76,740/- on different dates from 2008 to 2011 under different heads ought not have rejected his application for regularization. The opposite party did not file any document to show that the land in Sy.No.170/2 is an agricultural land, if it is an agricultural land, how the opposite party has approved layout plan submitted by K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy, in respect of some extent of land in the same survey number and issued proceedings under Ex.A22, that having kept the application pending for about 4 years and rejecting the application finally in 2012 under Ex.A15 and also finally rejecting his application under Ex.A18 inspite of his specific requisition submitted to the opposite party stating that there are several residential houses in Sy.No.170/2 and the land in Sy.No.170/2 is not at all an agricultural land and prays the Forum to direct the opposite party to approve the plan submitted by the applicant.

16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the applicant by name K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy, has approached the Government and brought the orders from the Government for considering his application for regularization of his land, therefore, it was considered. The land in Sy.No.170/2 of Chennayagunta village is an agricultural land, simply by paying a sum of Rs.45,250/- towards conversion charges, the agricultural land cannot be converted into non-agricultural land. There may be delay on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the procedures. The applicant ought to have pay the penal charges for issuing conversion proceedings. Conversion charges are different from paying the charges for converting the agricultural land into non-agriculture use, and submitted number of G.O(s) stating that the opposite party relied on those G.O(s). Except G.O.No.456 of 2008, all other subsequent G.O(s) from page.9 to 48 are the G.O(s) for extension of time for making applications for regularization of lands and for fixing time for scrutiny of the applications, they are not relevant for the case on hand. However, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted all those G.O(s) though they were irrelevant. Similarly, the learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2013(5) ALD 130(SC), this decision is in respect of unauthorized use of electricity, assessment of, after notice of provisional assessment and hearing to person indulging in unauthorized use of electricity etc., this judgment also not relevant for the facts of the case on hand. In the judgment their Lordships of Supreme Court has discussed Section-2(1)(b) of C.P.Act 1986 and discussed the words complainant, consumer, service and the word deficiency. This decision cited by the learned counsel for opposite party stated that their Lordships Supreme Court held in the decision that layout regularization cannot be termed as service, but the decision is on different facts. As such with much in obedience to their Lordships, we have to state that the facts of the above decision are against the facts of the case on hand and not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

            17.  In view of the admissions made by the opposite party in respect of submitting the application by the complainant in LRS No.627/2008 dt:02.07.2008 and collected a huge amount of Rs.6,76,740/- from the complainant on different dates during the period of 3 years and rejecting his application for regularization on the ground that the land sought for regularization is an agricultural land and the application of the complainant cannot be accepted and the land cannot be converted into non-agricultural use and finally rejecting the same under Exs.A15 and A18 amounts to unjust and having accepted similar application submitted by Sri.K.Vijayabhaskar Reddy, for regularization of his land in an extent of 4.851 acres in the same Sy.No.170/2 of Chennayagunta village, in which the land of complainant also situated. However, since the application of the complainant is not pending before the opposite party and it was already rejected under Ex.A15 on 28.06.2012, this Forum cannot direct the opposite party at this juncture to issue proceedings of approval to the complainant as prayed for. Since the application was already disposed-off in the month of June 2012 i.e. about 4 years ago, and as there are some latches on the part of the opposite party in rejecting the application of the complainant, we are of the opinion that the opposite party has to refund the entire amount collected from the complainant in a sum of Rs.6,76,740/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 29.09.2011 (date of last payment) and the opposite party is also liable to pay compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs referred to above along with the costs of the complaint. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            18.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, apart from deficiency in service, as such opposite party is liable to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant in a sum of Rs.6,76,740/- and also compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which we feel quite just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and for the mental agony caused to the complainant, and also to pay costs of the litigation. Accordingly the complaint is to be allowed.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.6,76,740/- (Rupees six lakhs seventy six thousand seven hundred and forty only) to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from 29.09.2011 (last date of payment) till realization, and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant for about 4 years and also directed to pay another sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.                                                              

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 16^th day of September, 2016.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-              

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: N.Venkatasiva Reddy (Additional Chief Examination Evidence Affidavit

            Filed).

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/s.

 

RW-1:V. Vinay Chand (Chief Affidavit Filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits Ex.A	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Registration of Registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1689/05. Dt: 02.03.2005.
	Photo copy of Resale Sale deed bearing DOC.No.2124/05 in favour of V. Vasanth Reddy and Wife. Dt: 21.03.2005.
	Photo copy of FMB Sketch.
	Photo copy of Pamphlet of TUDA for LRS.
	Photo copy of LRS approval proceedings and Plan of M. Appaswamy hearing Proc No.4100/2010 along with layout plan copies. Dt: 21.04.2011.
	Photo copy of Valuation certificate issued by S.R.O., Renigunta. Dt: 23.09.2011.
	Photo copy of Payment challans bearing Nos.2805, 2806 & 2807 (3 Nos.). Dt: 29.09.2011.
	Photo copy of Endorsement letter bearing proceedings No.LRS. 627/2008 issued by Opposite Party asking compliance of queries. Dt: 15.12.2011.
	Photo copy of Payment challans bearing Nos.4009 & 4010 (2 Nos.).Dt: 27.12.2011.
	Photo copy of layout of Plan.
	Photo copy of Model Form of Application for L.R.S. with their model plan.
	Photo copy of Application for regulation of un approved Layout.
	Photo copy of Indemnity Bond & Undertaking executed by V. Vasanth Reddy and Others. Dt: 02.02.2012.
	Photo copy of L.R.S approved proceedings and plan of the said V. Vasantha Reddy and his wife hearing Proc.No.4845/12. Dt: 04.04.2012.
	Photo copy of Proceedings bearing L.L.R.Sy.No.627/2008 rejection of approval. Dt: 28.06.2012.
	Photo copy of Proceedings bearing D.Dis.L.R.Sy.No.627/G3/2008 issued by TUDA, Tirupati. Dt: 04.10.2012.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 12.11.12.
	Photo copy of L.R.S approved proceedings and Plan of A. Rajasekhar bearing Proc.No.6467/2012. Dt: 19.12.2012.
	RTI Application reply to the application made by the complainant with endorsement in Original. Dt: 31.12.2012.
	Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed of Mavilla Appa Swamy.
	Photo copy of proceedings of the Vice-Chairman, TUDA, Tirupati. D.Dis.L.P.No.23/G1/97. Dt: 05.11.1999.
	Photo copy of proceedings of the Vice-Chairman, TUDA, Tirupati. L.P.No.34/G1/2014. Roc.No.3932/G1/2013. Dt: 10.10.2014.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

NIL 

 

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                    

                                                                                                               President

         

           // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

  

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.