State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tatajis Creative Heights Welfare ... vs 1.Creative Constructions on 22 May, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
C.C.04/2018
Between :
TATAJI'S Creative Heights Welfare Association,
Regd. No. 65 of 2014, Rep. by its General Secretary,
Mr. R.V.S. Siva Kumar, S/o. R. Sree Rama Murty,
Aged about: 35 years, Having Society Office in Ground Floor,
TATAJI'S Creative Heights, H. No. 1-3/125 & 144 TCH,
Masidbanda, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 500084
... Complainant
And
1. Creative Constructions,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
K. Prema Chandra Reddy, S/o. Late. K. Gopal Reddy,
R/o. H.NO. 12-13-677/65/A, Street No. 1, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad - 500017.
2. Smt. Swapna R. Mehtha,, W/o. Sri Ramesh Mehta,
Aged about: 56 years, R/o. Plot No.67, H.No. 10-2-117,
Road No.2, West Maredpally, Secunderabad - 500026.
.... Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 : B. Rajasekhara Reddy,
Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Suri Sravan Kumari,
Advocate.
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER
& HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, M EMBER MONDAY, THE TW ENTY SENCOND DAY OF MAY TW O THOUSAND TW ENTY THREE Order : (PER HON'BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, M EMBER)
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17 (1) (a) (i) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:
(i) To provide Municipal Water connection of 2 Diameter to complainant premises i.e., TATAJI'S CREATIVE 2 JHEIGHTS H.No. 1-3/125 & 144, TCH. Masidbandla, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 50084.
(ii) To provide |Municipal Sewerage connection to complainant premises i.e., TATAJI'S CREATIVE JHEIGHTS H.No. 1-3/125 & 144, TCH. Masidbandla, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 50084.
(iii) To complete the A.C. Gym equipment/establishment.
(iv) To complete Multi-purpose hall construction.
(v) To provide painting/wall care putty for those areas that were not completed.
(vi) To provide fire pumps/STP with working condition.
(vii) To provide Protection/Shield for electric meter area.
(viii) To provide Name plates.
(ix) To provide Parking slots & Markings documents to be handed over.
(x) To handed over the original and ling documents of the said Apartment.
(xi) To pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for 48 flats by the opposite party builder to the complainant towards mental agony and loss,.
(xii) To pay punitive damages caused by the acts of the opposite party and pay damages U/s. 14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act.
(xiii) To award costs of Rs.10,000/- and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
1. The case of the complainant is that he is the Secretary of the flat owners Welfare Association which is formed for the welfare of flat consisting of 48 flats. And in the year 2014 all the flat owners have formed an association and registered the same under the co- operative societies act vide registered No. 65/2014 dated 22.01.2014 by name and style "TATAJI's Creative Heights Welfare Association". The opposite party No.1 is the builder having its office at Tarnaka, Hyderabad by the name and style "Creative Constructions". Opposite party No.2 is the land lady of the said 3 apartment who resides at West Marredpally, Secunderabad. The opposite party No. 1 started above venture in the year 2011 hence started selling the flats from 2013 onwards and the all the flat owners have taken the possession of flats by 2015. And the opposite party No. 1 promised to provide minimum common amenities such as water connection and sewerage connection within a short period but has been postponing the same on one of the other pretext, as such, the complainant association in its general body meeting has resolved to file a consumer complaint against the opposite party and authorized the general secretary of the association to sign all the necessary papers and passe d a resolution to that effect.
2. The opposite party had issued colourful broucher stating that the said venture is very close to Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad and had promised to provide the following amenities to all the flat owners.
(1) Independent apartment with no common walls. (2) Reticulated Gas Pipeline.
(3) Two car parking for apartment.
(4) Aesthetically designed common walls. (5) Designer land scapping and park designer. (6) Multipurpose halls with stage.
(7) AC gymnasium.
(8) Power back up through generator except for Air Conditioner and geyser.
(9) Jogging track.
(10) Children play area.
3. And also promised to provide good quality of electrical goods and kitchen and flooring, toilet accessories and other things required for a flat. And based on such promises and being lured by such brochure all the flat owners have entered into agreement of sale with opposite party No.1 & 2 and also proceeded with execution of registered sale deeds and subsequently possession also handed over. And in the agreement of sale it was specifically mentioned that the opposite party No. 1 is the absolute owner of open flat in Sy. NO. 125 and 144 adm. 700 Sq. Yards situated at 4 Kondapur, Village, Sharlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of a registered document vide No. 21061/2006 and that opposite party No.2 is the absolute owner of open flat in Sy. No. 125 adm. 3,630 Sq. yards situated at Kondapur, Village, Sharlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of registered document No. 3175/2005 and 19263/2006 dated 30.03.1995 and 23.09.1996 respectively.
4. On 14.04.2014 the complainant association called for a general body meeting and also invited opposite party No.1 and passed a resolution that the water and sewerage connection be provided and gym equipment, establishment of community hall construction of fire forms, STP was not in working condition. And in the said meeting the representative of opposite party No.1 promised to complete the same within two months and also informed the same to opposite party No.1 through phone and a mail was also sent. Again on 05.09.2015 another general body meeting was conducted wherein the representative of opposite party No.1 was also present and it was resolved that opposite party No.1 should pay minimum 50% of charges till the water connection is provided apart from the other pending works. Again on 12.02.2017 another general body meeting was conducted in which the representative of opposite party No. 1 was present and the resolutions taken in the meeting where informed to opposite party NO.1 & 2 through registered post. Again on 14.03.2017 another general body meeting conducted wherein it was resolved and the representative of opposite party No.1 had promised to complete all the pending works except the municipal water connection by 08.04.2017. The said resolution copy was sent through registered post to both the opposite parties. But till date neither the works are completed by the opposite parties nor the complainant have received any reply. Inspite of the several promises made by the representative of opposite party till date the said works are still pending and opposite party is postponing the same on some or the other pretext since the last five years and due to such deficient acts of the opposite party No.1. The complainant association is compelled to purchase drinking water from outside by spending huge amounts. And it has been learnt that the opposite party had 5 only applied for the water and sewerage connection by paying a nominal fee and failed to deposit the amount required by the water works department. Inspite of the fact that all the flat owners have paid the water charges separately to the builder. But he failed to pay the same to the water department thereby depriving the complainant association from the water connection. All these acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service due to which the complainant is compelled to approach this court for all the pending works and also for compensation and costs.
5. Written Version of Opposite Party No.1 :-
The opposite party No.1 filed their written version while admitting the agreements of sale and sale deeds of the flats and had taken a preliminary abjection of limitation, and stated that since he had started the project in the year 2011 and by 2013 to 2014 he had sold all the flats and all the flat owners have occupied the said flats by 2013. And after a lapse of 4 years the present complaint is filed, as such the same is barred by limitation. Further expressed his unawareness with regard to the registration of the welfare association. And further pleaded that in the year 2007 he had taken the permission from GHMC, and in the year 2008 commenced the construction and completed the construction of the complex by 2011 itself. And by the end of the April, 2012 all the purchasers have occupied the flats. And till 2013 he has maintained the apartments by spending huge amounts at his cost for providing the amenities such as security guards, electricity bill, lift maintenance, garden, STP (Sewerage Treatment Plant) fire equipment, RO system etc., and that the opposite party had never agreed to provide any drinking water connection and sewerage connection, as there was no existing pipeline in the said locality when the venture was started and completed. As such neither agreement of sale nor the sale deeds have a mention that the water connection and sewerage connection would be provided. And in the development agreement it has been specifically stated as "Water system from borewell through overhead tank and provision of Municipal water supply with sump and a separate compartment in overhead tank" and that the water pipeline was laid only in the month on July, 2017 and until then there was no municipal water line in this locality and as there was no drainage line in the area 6 this opposite party had provided the STP by spending huge amounts and the waste water pipeline was connected to the nala provided by the GHMC.
6. The opposite party further pleaded that he had constructed the complex with good quality material and after being satisfied by the construction the flat owners have purchased the same. And that the opposite party No.1 had never agreed to provide any gym equipment as such there is no mention of the same either in the agreement sale or in the sale deeds.
7. The opposite party further pleads that he had never sent any representative to any of the general body meetings held by the complainant association and nor there were any promises made on behalf of him by any office representative. And also expressed his unawareness with regard to any of the general body meetings as alleged by the complainant. And all these documents with regard to the general body meetings have been created and fabricated only to be filed in this complaint. And none of the resolutions passed in the said meetings are binding upon this opposite party as all the flat purchasers have clearly agreed and accepted in the letter of delivery of possession dated 24.11.2013 that the possession is taken from the opposite party No.1 after being satisfied with the construction and quality and also agreed that the same are duly completed. The opposite party further pleads that he had never collected any amounts towards water connections nor the flat owners have paid the same at any other time since there were no connections at all when the venture was completed. And as the opposite party No.1 had provided all the amenities such as RO system, gym room, community hall, fire equipment STP children play area with equipment, big size letter box etc., to the complex. As such, there is no deficiency of their part. Hence, not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, prayed that the complainant be dismissed with exemplary costs.
78. Written Version of opposite party No.2:-
The opposite party no.2 filed her written version while admitting the ownership of the property and also the development agreement between her and opposite party NO.1, had pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable as it is not filed with any petition for condonation of the delay. And further pleaded that the General Secretary who has signed the complaint is not an authorized person, since the resolution cum authorized letter dated 03.09.2017 is signed by only nine members whereas the association has 48 members in it.
The opposite party further pleads that all the allegations in the complaint and the reliefs claimed are against opposite party No. 1 as such she is no way concerned with regard to the said allegations and reliefs but however, she has admitted that the General Body Meeting dated 05.09.2015 was attended by her husband and also the representative of opposite party No.1. And as none of the allegations are made against her, prayed that the complaint be dismissed against her.
9. Sri RVS Siva Kumar General Secretary of the complainant association has filed evidence affidavit on behalf of complainant association. Mr. K. Prem Chander Reddy Managing Partner of opposite party No.1 company filed his affidavit and Smt. Swapna R. Mehta opposite party No.2 filed her affidavit.
Heard both sides and perused the record now the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the opposite parties have been deficient in their services?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the complaint.
4. If yes, to what extent?
10. Point No.1:- The specific case of the complainant is that the members of the association had purchased the flats being lured by 8 the amenities promised by the opposite party in their broucher, but the opposite party failed to provide the basic amenities such as municipal water connection and sewerage connection, gym equipment/establishment, community hall construction, painting/wall care putty, fire pumps, STP not in working condition etc., and there were several meetings held by the complainant association wherein the representative of the opposite party was also present and promised to complete the same in short period but failed to do so till date. As such having no other alternative the present complaint is filed seeking the several reliefs. And in support of the case the complainant filed Ex.A1 to A27.
On the other hand the opposite party No.1/builder has taken a preliminary objection of limitation and contended that the development agreement was entered with opposite party No.2/owner in the year 2006 and permission for construction was obtained in the year 2007 and the construction of complex was completed by the end of 2011 and the opposite party started selling the flats from 2010 and by April, 2012 all the flats were sold and since then there was no complaint raised by the complainant, and only in the year 2018 this complaint is filed which is beyond two years of execution of sale deeds and handing over of possession. And since all the sale deeds are executed by the year 2012 and the present complaint is filed in 2018 i.e., beyond two years. As stipulated U/s. 24 (A) of CP Act, 1986. The complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.
11. Admittedly the development agreement is dated 20.10.2006 and the agreement of sale and sale deeds filed by complainant under Ex.A6 to A10 are of the year 2011 & 2012 respectively. But it is pertinent to mention here that the said sale deeds are for semi- finished flats. In such case in view of there being a development agreement until and unless the flats are completed in all aspects it cannot be treated that the project was completed and possession was handed over in 2012 itself. The burden is on the opposite party to prove that the project was completed in all aspects and possession was handed over in 2012 itself. Except for saying that the possession was handed over four years back there is no whisper of completion of work. Though as per Ex.A1 the 9 complainant association was registered in 2014 which implies that the possession was handed over in the year 2014 itself, but however whether all the amenities provided by then is to be proved by the opposite party. In the absence of the same it cannot be concluded that the opposite party had provided all the amenities. Hence, we feel that there exists a continuous cause of action and the complaint is not barred by limitation and is well within the limitation period, the point is answered in the favour of complainant.
12. Point No. 2 & 3:- Before going into the merits of the case we would like to enlist the reliefs claimed by the complainant and deal with each relief separately.
(i) To provide Municipal Water connection of 2 Diameter to complainant premises i.e., TATAJI'S CREATIVE JHEIGHTS H.No. 1-3/125 & 144, TCH. Masidbandla, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 50084.
(ii) To provide |Municipal Sewerage connection to complainant premises i.e., TATAJI'S CREATIVE JHEIGHTS H.No. 1-3/125 & 144, TCH. Masidbandla, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 50084.
(iii) To complete the A.C. Gym equipment/establishment.
(iv) To complete Multi-purpose hall construction.
(v) To provide painting/wall care putty for those areas that were not completed.
(vi) To provide fire pumps/STP with working condition.
(vii) To provide Protection/Shield for electric meter area.
(viii) To provide Name plates.
(ix) To provide Parking slots & Markings documents to be handed over.
(x) To handed over the original and ling documents of the said Apartment.
With regard to the first two reliefs i.e., water and sewerage connection the complainant has relied on Ex. A4 brochure on the other hand the opposite party had pleaded that he had never promised to provide the same since there is no promise made either in the development agreement or sale deeds.
10A perusal of Ex.B11 de velopment agreement & sale deeds under Ex.A6 to A10 and B4 to B7 reveals that there are no specifications mentioned nor there is any promise made to provide any amenities. But however in the brochure under Ex.A4 there is a mention for provision for water supply as "water supply from borewell and Municipal Corporation" and the provision of sewerage connection was never promised under the brochure. But however with regard to municipal water connection it is the specific plea of the opposite party that, since there was no water connection & sewerage connection in that locality opposite party had provided the RO system and sewerage treatment plant (STP) by spending huge amount, and to prove that the water connection was provided to that locality only in the year 2017 the opposite party had filed Ex.B.9 & B11 which clearly establishes that there was no water connection in the said locality in the year 2014 i.e., when the complainant association was formed. And the providing of RO and STP is not denied by the complainant.
But however, under Ex.A27 dated 07.09.2014 wherein the Opposite party No.1/Builder who has attended the meeting and a resolution was passed that the builder would apply for water connection on or before 25.09.2014, similarly under Ex.A32 dated 06.09.2015 a resolution was passed seeking an update for water connection by 30.09.2015. And having received such mail, and being part of the meetings the opposite party cannot now say that he never promised to provide municipal water connection. Being part of the said meetings where resolutions were passed for provision of municipal water connection, cannot now take the plea that the same was not promised. The opposite party No.2 had also confirmed in her written version that the said meeting was attended by her husband and also the representative of opposite party No.1. Though apparently the water connection was provided in the year 2017 which is substantiated by Ex. B9 & B11, but however, inspite of not having a connection in the said locality the opposite party builder continued to promise to provide the same by participating in the meetings and without taking any objection to the resolution taken in the General Body Meetings. Hence, we are of the view that 11 the Opposite party/Builder is duty bond to provide the water connection. But however, the complainant had pleaded that they have paid charges for water connection but no proof is filed to that effect. On the other hand under Ex.B8 the opposite party has filed the charges incurred for installation of RO system, in such case, it would be unjustified if opposite party is directed to obtain the water connection by paying the required charges on his own. Therefore, we feel that the members of the complainant association are bound to contribute equally for the charges that may be incurred by the Opposite party/Builder in obtaining the municipal water connection.
Coming to relief No. 3 & 4. A/c Gym and Multipurpose Hall. The same finds a mention in the Ex.A4 brochure. The complainant itself is not sure whether A/c Gym is not provided or the Gym equipment is not provided. But however, as per Ex.A4 the opposite party promised to provide. A/c Gym. But not the equipment and opposite party had merely stated that the A/c Gym was provided but no proof is filed to that effect, in such case, if the Gym is not constructed the opposite party is bound to provide the Gym but not the equipment. And similarly there is no proof filed by the opposite party to show that the multipurpose hall was constructed as such the opposite party is bound the provide the multipurpose hall with stage.
Coming to relief No.5 which is "to provide painting/wall care putty for those areas that were completed".
As stated in point No.1 as the possession was taken over by the complainant in the 2014 based on Ex.A1. After a lapse of four years the complainant cannot claim the said relief. Since there will be wear and tear or every chances of fading away of the paints in last four years. Hence, after a lapse of four years the opposite party cannot be made liable for providing painting that was not completed. Under Ex.A39 the complainant had filed certain photographs but however the same do not bear any date so as to ascertain as to when the said photographs were taken, at no point 12 these photographs can be presumed to have been taken in the year 2014. As such relief No.5 is denied.
13. Coming to relief No.6, 7 & 8 the same was not promised under Ex.A4. Hence, the question of granting these relief does not arise.
With regard to relief No. 9 the complainant has not clarified as to how many units are there in the apartment and how many parking slots were provided, because Ex.A4 only says "Two car parking slots for each unit" in the absence of any clarification with regard to how many car parking slots were provided, when there is such ambiguity no relief can be granted.
14. Coning to relief No.10 as the association was formed in 2014, it is the duty of the builder to hand over all the original link documents and other relevant documents to the welfare association. Hence, we feel that the complainant is entitled for the said relief.
Due to such incomplete works all the members of the association might have certainly faced inconvenience and hardship. Therefore, we feel that the complainant be suitably compensated. As far as liability of opposite party No.2 is concerned she being the owner had executed the sale deeds and also the development agreement as such, she is equally liable for the deficiencies caused by her developer.
Based on the above discussions we are of the view that it was unfair on the part of the opposite parties to not provide all the amenities that were promised in the brochure. Hence, we feel that the complainant is entitled for few reliefs but not all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
1315. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally:
i. to provide the municipal water connection to the complainant after collecting the required charges from all the flat owners equally;
ii. To provide A/C. Gymnasium (excluding equipment) iii. To provide multipurpose hall with stage; iv. To hand over all the original link documents of the said apartment; and v. To pay a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the inconvenience and hardship caused to the members of the complainant.
Rest of the claims of the complainant are dismissed. Time for compliance for item No. 1 is one month after receiving amounts from all the flat owners. Time for compliance of item Nos. ii to v is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
SD/ SD/-
--------------------- ----------------------------
M EMBER(M-J) M EMBER (M -NJ)
Dt:22.05.2023.
BSR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
Evidence affidavit of Evidence affidavit of
The complainant Opposite party No. 1 Mr.
Mr. R.V. S. Sivakumar K. Prem Chender Reddy
Opposite party No.2
Smt. Swapna R. Mehta
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A1: Copy of Registration Certificate, dated: 22.01.2014.
Ex.A2: Copy of Bye-Laws of Association, dated: 22.01.2014. Ex.A3: Copy of Resolution cum Authorization Letter, dated:
03.09.2017.
Ex.A4: Copy of Brochur.
Ex.A5: Copy of Agreement of Sale.
Ex.A6: Copy of Copy of Agreement of Sale.
14Ex.A7: Copy of Agreement of Sale.
Ex.A8: Copy of Sale Deeds.
Ex.A9: Copy of Sale Deeds.
Ex.A10: Copy of Sale Deeds.
Ex.A11: Copy of General Body Meeting Resolution, dated:
14.04.2014.
Ex.A12: Copy of General Body Meeting Resolution, dated:
05.09.2015.
Ex.A13: Copy of General Body Meeting Resolution, dated:
12.02.2017.
Ex.A14: Copy of General Body Meeting Resolution, dated:
12.02.2017.
Ex.A15: Copy of Postal Receipts, dated: 14.02.2017. Ex.A16: Copy of Postal Receipts, dated: 14.02.2017. Ex.A17: Copy of Acknowledgments, dated: 16.02.2017. Ex.A18: Copy of Acknowledgments, dated: 16.02.2017. Ex.A19: Copy of Copy of General Body Meeting Resolution to opposite party No.1, dated: 25.05.2017.
Ex.A20: Copy of Copy of General Body Meeting Resolution to opposite party No.2, dated: 25.05.2017.
Ex.A21: Copy of Postal Receipts, dated: 25.05.2017. Ex.A22: Copy of Postal Receipts, dated: 25.05.2017. Ex.A23: Copy of Acknowledgments, dated: 27.05.2017. Ex.A24: Copy of Acknowledgments, dated: 27.05.2017. Ex.A25: Copy of Copy of General Body Meeting Resolution to opposite party No.1, dated: 17.06.2017.
Ex.A26: Copy of Copy of General Body Meeting Resolution to opposite party No.2, dated: 17.06.2017.
Ex.A27: Copy of Maintenance Receipts paid to opposite party No.1, dated: 06.06.2013 to 05.11.2013.
Ex.A28: Copy of the Minutes of the Annual General Body Meeting, dated: 17.03.2014.
Ex.A29: Copy of the Minutes of the Meeting through email to opposite party, dated: 20.04.2014.
Ex.A30: Copy of the Minutes of the Annual General Body Meeting, dated: 12.02.2017.
Ex.A31: Copy of the Comments, dated: 147.03.2017. Ex.A32: Copy of the Minutes of the Meeting, dated: 06.09.2015. Ex.A33: Copy of the Minutes of the Agenda Annual General Body Meeting, dated: 30.04.2017.
Ex.A34: Copy of the Bunch of Water Tanker Receipts (20 Nos.) purchased/spent by the Petitioner/Complainant towards water. Ex.A35: Copy of the Water Softener Receipts spent by the Petitioner/Complainant.
Ex.A36: Copy of the Audit Reports for 2013/20104, 2016/2018/2019 showing the water charges spent by the Petitioner/Complainant.
Ex.A37: Copy of the Show Cause Notice received from the Hon'ble Judge for SC/St (POA) cum Additional District Judge in I.A. NO. 2079 of 2015 in O.S. NO. 654 of 2012.
Ex.A38: Copy of the Petition in I.A. NO. 2079 of 2015 in O.S. No. 654/ of 2012, of 8 impacted flat owners.
Ex.A39: Original Photographs along with CD.
15For Opposite Parties:
Ex.B1: Copy of Registered Development Agreement cum GPA No. 21067/2066, dated 20.10.2006.
Ex.B2: Copy of Proceedings letter vide NO.
G/153/BP/WZ/191/2007, dated 03.12.2017. Ex.B3: Copy of Sanction plan permit NO. 2696/P4/H/07. Ex.B4: Copy of Sale Deed bearing No. 4140/2010, dated 29.04.2010.
Ex.B5: Copy of Sale Deed bearing No. 4141/2010, dated 29.04.2010.
Ex.B6: Copy of Sale Deed bearing No. 4142/2010, dated 30.04.2010.
Ex.B7: Copy of Sale Deed bearing No. 4143/2010, dated 30.04.2010.
Ex.B8: Copy of RO system Installation Report, dated 18.10.2012. Ex.B9: Copy of Letter bearing No. Esst/GH(E)PD-VII/2019-20, dated 22.08.2019.
Ex.B10: Copy of Application given to the GM, HMWSS & SB, under RTI Act, dated 16.08.2019.
Ex.B11: Copy of Picture of Inauguration stone of water pipeline by Hon'ble Chief Minister on 03.02.2019.
SD/ SD/-
--------------------- ----------------------------
M EMBER(M-J) M EMBER (M -NJ)
Dt:22.05.2023.
BSR