Date of filing: 19.12.2013.
Date of disposal: 01.7.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Tuesday, the 1st day of July, 2014
C.C.No.3 of 2014
Between:
Kumari Manne Vineela, D/o Manne Nagendra Rao, Hindu, Aged 28 years, R/o.D.No.74-15-3, Lock Road, Krishna Nagar, Old Check Post, Vijayawada – 7.
…..Complainant.
And
Vice Chairman, VGTM UDA, Governorpet, Vijayawada.
.. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 24.6.2014, in the presence Sri B. Sambasiva Rao, advocate for complainant; Sri Krishna Murthy, advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to correct the proceedings dated 17.1.2013 issued by the opposite party by incorporating necessary charges, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and to pay costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant had purchased 450.01 sq. yards equal to 382.11 sq. meters of site in Jupudi village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District under registered sale deed dated 26.8.2004. He made an application on 27.9.2008 for regularization of the site and submitted necessary documents and fulfilled all formalities by 29.1.2011. As there was delay the complainant sought for information under Right to Information Act, and later the opposite party sent the regularization proceedings in R.Dis.No.C5-10772/08 dated 17.1.2013 with incorrect details and mistakes. The title of the complaint is shown as ‘Smt’, but she is ‘kumari’. The property is situate in Jupudi in Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, but in the proceedings it is shown as Guntupalli, Vijayawada Rural Mandal. The extent of the regularized plot is 237.44 sq. meters but it is shown as 215.08 sq. meters. The opposite party had cut an extent to a width 27 feet on North side to show the northern road as 60 feet wide road but there is only 33 feet wide road. The complainant sought for further information and in the reply the information officer clarified that there is no proposal of master plan road in R.S.No.74/2A3 in which survey number in which the complainant plot is situate. The complaint got legal notice sent through advocate bringing the mistakes to the notice to the opposite party. She requested the approval of lay out for the entire extent and without mistakes. The opposite party in the reply repeated the same mistakes. There is therefore deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the present complaint is filed for the above stated reliefs.
3. The opposite party filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint and further stating as follows:
The mistakes regarding title name of the village and mandal can be rectified even on representation by the complainant but she magnified the issued to make unlawful profit. The dispute relating regularization of lay out does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. As per G.O.Ms.No.902 Mandal Administration and Urban Development (M1) Department dated 31.12.2007 the norms to be insisted for regularization of unapproved layout that there shall be a 9 meters wide road and as per G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 17.4.2012 there shall be 60 feet wide road for approval of plan for general degree and other non-professional college/polytechnic, shopping malls etc. The western side plot of the complainant was regularized showing road of 60 feet width. The plan for construction of Engineering and Degree College by Nova group was sanctioned with a road width of 18 meters equal to 60 feet two years prior to approval of complainant’s plot. So the complainant’s plot is also approved with 60 feet wide road on the college. The plot of the complainant was regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.902 and 168. With a view to promoting land development on urban areas in the state, the Government of A.P. are encouraging development through approved layout only. The provision in that connection shall be considered in a harmonious manner with the government orders and circumstances of each and every case. The opposite party had discharged the duties diligently though there are several restraints such as lack of men and machinery and to attend the needs of public in Krishna and Guntur districts. The officials of opposite party examined 17,000 applications for regularization under regularization scheme and in that process there may be certain mistakes. It does not amount to deficiency in service. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed her affidavit as deposition of PW.1. Architectural Draftsman of opposite party filed his affidavit as deposition of DW.1. Exs.A1 to A16 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B4 are marked on behalf of the opposite party.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties.
6. The points that arise for determination are:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
Point No.1:
7. The complainant purchased plot measuring 282.11 sq. meters under registered sale deed original of Ex.A1 on 26.8.2004. She purchased the said site marked as G.Nos.27 and 28 by a layout shown in the plan attached to the sale deed. She made an application to the opposite party on 27.9.2008. Subsequently after reminders the opposite party sent a proceedings dated 17.1.2013 under Ex.A6 regularizing the unapproved layout showing some variations from the applied extent. They seems to be some mistakes in noting the title of the complainant and noting the village and mandal where the property is located and approved extent. The opposite party has no objection to correct the mistakes on a representation. However the opposite party states that the extent is properly noted in the approved layout in view of the necessity to leave 60 wide feet road on North and 30 feet wide road on the East. The resultant extent approved is only 215.08 sq. meters as against the 361.87 sq. meters. There are details given in the proceedings Ex.A6 as regards reducing the extent of the layout regulated. In the plan attached to the proceedings Ex.A6 plot area is shown as 368.05 sq. meters the road effected area shown as 144.97 sq. meters and net plot area is shown as 215.08 sq. meters. The opposite party had deleted 30 feet wide strip on the eastern side and 27 feet wide strip on the northern side. In the plan submitted along with representation in Ex.A4 there is reference to eastern road with a proposed widening up to 30 feet. So admittedly the eastern side road width is acceptable. In the schedule.2 of Ex.A1 the eastern boundary is shown as 24 feet wide road. The proposed widening as per Ex.A6 is 3 feet on either side. So the width of the plot was reduced from 59 feet to 49 feet as rightly noted in Ex.A4 plan. The extent of the area covered by the marked plot in Ex.A4 plan is 431.01 sq. yards = 360.38 sq. meters. In the plan in Ex.A6 the approved plot is shown as measuring 49 feet wide and 52 feet. 2 inches long. It’s are 284.015 sq. yards which is equal to 237.47 sq. meters. So even according to plan approved by the opposite party the extent is 237.49 and 215.08 sq. meters as noted in the proceeding of Ex.A6.
8. The question is whether the opposite party is deficient in service in reducing the extent by leaving northern side extent to a width of 27 feet for the widening road. The mistake is not in the calculation but it is in knowingly leaving 27 feet wide area on the northern side for widening the road. The learned counsel for the complainant argues that the road situate to the north of the place is only 33 feet road from the beginning and it was never widened to 66 feet road and accordingly layouts were regularized for the plots located to the north of that road as revealed by the copies marked as Ex.A14 to A16 and suddenly the road cannot be shown as 60 feet wide only for the purpose of regularizing the complainant’s plot. The learned counsel for the complainant argues that the opposite party is colluding with college authorities and resorting to such irregularities with a view to force the complainant to part with her site in favour of Nova college. This Forum cannot look into that aspect of collusion. However this Forum can look into patent and deliberate wrongs done by the opposite party in regularizing the plot.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the opposite party has the power to decide whether to regularize or not to regularize and to whether to regularize inaccordance with the government orders and rules and such administrative order passed by the opposite party cannot be subjected to review by this Forum and that order is not amenable for modification by this Forum. We are agree with the opposite party. If there is an administrative order passed by the opposite party it cannot be questioned in this Forum. But at the same time it cannot be said that this Forum has no jurisdiction as regards the regularization of plots. The complainant had admittedly paid Rs.47,880/- for the purpose of layout regularization as noted in Ex.A6. That amount includes pro-rate open space charges. When fee is collected for regularization the opposite party is bound to render service as defined and if there is deficiency in service this Forum can interfere. Therefore this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
10. The opposite party has not filed any copy of order as such showing a decision taken by the opposite party to widen the road situate to the north of the complainant’s plot to 60 feet from existing 33 feet and deciding howmuch extent it has to be widened on either side from midline. The documents relied on by the learned counsel for the opposite party are the rules in G.O.Ms.No.902 dated 31.12.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 7.4.2012. As regards G.O.Ms.No.902 there is no dispute because of application of said G.O. particularly Rule No.10 which prescribes 10% open space to be insisted or reserve equivalent land and where such open space is not provided in such unapproved layout site pro-rata open space charge as per the prevailing mark value based on sub-registrar record shall be collected. The sanction and regularization under Ex.A6 show that pro-rata open space charges of Rs.9,665/- was collected from the complainant. So G.O.Ms. No.902 is complied with.
11. The other G.O.Ms. No.168 was issued on 7.4.2012. By that G.O., A.P. Building Rules, 2012 were notified. They inter alia require approach road for buildings sites and flats. As per Rule No.4 there shall be a minimum 18 meters wide abuting existing road for various usages of the building activities, in case of the building is meant for general decree or other nonprofessional college/polytechnic, ITI etc. Such buildings are categorized as falling in category B3. These rules are meant for sanction building plan and not for widening road. If a building plan is to be approved as per the building rules on or after 7.4.2012 and in case the building is meant for general degree college or other non-professional college the width of the road adjacent the building shall be 18 meters. That means if there does not exist 18 meters wide road abuting proposed building the building plan cannot be approved and permission for construction cannot be given. The rules do not mean that if there existed a small road and if there is a proposal to construct a college building the road would be automatically widened to 18 meters without any positive action taken by the authorities to widen the road if necessary by making acquisition required. It is not proper for the opposite party to argue that since Nova college is in that street, the street width must be 60 feet. Nova college building plan is not filed though the sanction proceedings are filed as Ex.B1. It does not contain plan.
12. The complainant had applied to VGTM-UDA under Right to Information Act, asking for master plan in Jupudi village showing any road passing through R.S. NO.74/2A3 in VGTM-UDA vide Ex.A9. The public information officer replied under Ex.A10 that in Ketanakonda zonal development plan there was no master plan road running through R.S.No.74/2A3. It is also stated in Ex.A10 that there was no proposal to lay a master plan road to the said survey number. The complainant’s plot is admittedly located in R.S.No.74/2A3. Therefore there was neither a master plan road nor a proposal for a master plan road running through R.S. No.74/2A3 of Jupudi.
13. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the public information officer issuing Ex.A10 is not the authority to decide whether the road has to be widened to 60 feet or not and he has given to necessary without consulting the Vice Chairman of VGTM, UDA. This is no answer to the issue raised by the complainant because there is no order passed by VGTM-UDA and no master plan approved by VGTM, UDA showing 60 feet wide road to the north of the complainant’s plot.
14. The plan in Ex.A6 shows the road in dispute as ‘existing 33 feet wide road to be widened to 60 feet road’. Among these words, the words ‘existing 33 feet road’ are in print and the remaining words are in manuscript’. That means at the time of repairing the plan showing regularization of unapproved plot in R.S.No.74/2A3 of Jupudi village the words ‘to be widened to 60 feet road’ were not there and they must have been written in manuscript subsequently and before taking blue print. If there is an order passed by VGTM, UDA for formation of 60 feet road, this Forum cannot question it, but there is no such order placed by the opposite party. Infact there must not be such order, in view of the information already given by public information officer under Ex.A10.
15. If a road has to be widened the normal rule is that it has to be widened on either side taking equally from the midline of existing road. If there is any deviation there must be a notification, an enquiry and a resolution passed by VGTM, UDA. No such proceedings do exist. The complainant filed three copies of approved plan regarding regularization of unapproved layout in respect of plot Nos.1, 12 and 13 of third parties also shown in Ex.A4 the plan filed by the complainant for regularization of her plot. For all the said plots the southern road is shown as 33 feet wide road. There is nothing mentioned about the widened 60 feet road. Ex.A14 to A16 are the copies of sanctioned proceedings and plans related to regularization of unapproved plot Nos.13, 12 and 1 respectively. The learned counsel for the opposite party says that these plots are located in survey No.65/2A, 66/1 where as the complainant’s plot is situate in R.S.No.74/2A3 and therefore there is no nexus between the sanction of said three plots and sanction of complainant’s plot. We cannot accept this submission. The complainant’s plot and the three plots covered by Ex.A14 to A16 are shown as plots covered by the same unauthorized layout as per Ex.A4. There is only a road running in between the three plots and the complainant’s plot. Merely because they are situate in different survey numbers it cannot be said that they have no relevancy as regards the point in issue. Therefore we are of the opinion that there is no order passed by VGTM, UDA to widen the road and prescribing the method of widening the road or sanction of a master plan to widen the road to north of the complainant’s plot. Then the note covered by Ex.B4 has no value. It cannot be considered as an order but it must be considered as an error and an item of deficiency. Therefore we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in issuing a sanction order incorrectly.
Point No.2:
16. In view of the answer on point no.1 it is necessary to direct the opposite party to issue fresh sanction order incorporating correct and full information and enclosing correct plan.
17. In the result this complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to issue fresh sanction order to the complainant in place of the order already issued under Ex.A6 with full and correct details rectifying the mistakes crept in Ex.A6. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the complainant. The opposite party has to comply with the order within one month from the date of this order. The complaint for rest of the reliefs is dismissed.
Dictated to steno, N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 1st day of July, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
Kumari Manne Vineela – PW.1 Architectural Draftsman of OP
(by affidavit) DW – 1,(by affidavit).
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 26.08.2010 Photocopy of sale deed.
Ex.A2 27.09.2008 Photocopy of application.
Ex.A3 27.12.2010 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A4 29.01.2011 Photocopy of application with plan.
Ex.A5 28.12.2012 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A6 17.01.2013 Photocopy of proceedings.
Ex.A7 24.01.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by PIO to complainant’s counsel.
Ex.A8 18.03.2013 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A9 18.03.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant’s counsel to Asst. PIO
Ex.A10 18.04.2013 Photocopy of information under RTI.
Ex.A11 16.05.2013 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A12 18.06.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant’s counsel Vice Chairman, VGTM, UDA.
Ex.A13 12.07.2013 Photocopy of letter issued to complainant’s counsel by PIO, VGTM UDA.
Ex.A14 21.04.2011 Photocopy of proceedings issued by OP to Cherukuri Sampoorna.
Ex.A15 21.04.2011 Photocopy of proceedings issued by OP to Cherukuri Sampoorna.
Ex.A16 21.04.2011 Photocopy of proceedings issued by OP to Manne Nagendra Rao.
On behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B1 02.02.2009 Photocopy of proceedings issued by OP to for approval of plans of Nova college.
Ex.B2 31.12.2007 Photocopy of G.O.Ms.No.902.
Ex.B3 07.04.2012 Photocopy of G.O.Ms.No.168
Ex.B4 04.05.2011 Photocopy of note file approval.
PRESIDENT
