State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Commissioner vs N.Prabhakar on 17 March, 2023
1
Appeal No.345/2020
Date of filing:16.03.2020
Date of Disposal:17.03.2023
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 17th Day of March 2023
PRESENT
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT
Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.345/2020
The Commissioner,
Mysore Urban Development Authority,
Mysuru. ........ Appellant
(By Mr.G.B.Sharath Gowda, Adv.)
-Versus-
1. N.Prabhakar,
S/o Late H.P.Nagendraiah,
Aged about 69 years,
H.No.12, Block No.33,
SBM Colony, Srirampura,
2nd Stage, Chamarajanagar Mohalla,
Mysore-570023.
(By Mr.Manjunath S, Adv.)
2. The President,
SBM Employess House Building
Co-operative Society,
Office at No.
Post Box No.7, Ashoka Road,
Mysuru-570010. ........ Respondents
2
Appeal No.345/2020
ORDER
BY HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by OP1 i.e., Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in CC/356/2018, aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore (for short District Forum/Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint)
2. The brief facts of the case are: Complainant raised consumer complaint before the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs with a prayer to direct OP1 to execute registered title deed in respect of the property bearing no.12 in Block No.33, situated at SBM Layout, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysore, measuring 18x12 mtrs in his favour. Further direct OP to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation along with cost of the proceeding and such other relief as the Forum deems fit. Upon service of notice OP1 MUDA appeared through learned counsel and contested the matter. OP2 Society despite service of notice failed to appear before the Forum and thus was placed exparte. OP1 MUDA in its version admitted that they have executed Lease cum Sale Agreement, issue of 3 Appeal No.345/2020 Possession Certificate and Transfer of Khata in favour of complainant. It is specific contention of the OP1 MUDA is that that it has not executed title deeds in favour of complainant as the schedule property is earmarked for park. As per Section 39 of Karnataka Urban Development Act OP1 MUDA shall not alienate or transfer any CA sites to anyone. Thus on the above grounds sought for dismissal of the complaint. The Forum below after holding detailed enquiry recorded reasons in favour of complainant and passed the impugned order directing OP1 to issue title deed in respect of the site measuring 18x12 mtrs, bearing no.12, in block no.33, situated at SBM Layout, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Mysuru, in favour of complainant within 60 days. Failing to comply, OP1 shall pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day until compliance. Further directs OP1 to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant in 60 days. In default, to pay interest @ 10% p.a. until payment.
3. It is this order being assailed in this appeal by OP1 MUDA on the ground that, impugned order is contrary to law and facts since MUDA had received a report by the Urban Scheme 4 Appeal No.345/2020 Department that the area is specifically reserved for parks and Section 39 of Karnataka Urban Development Act prohibits alienation of the said sites to any person as the site falls within earmarked for park. Also the Karnataka Parks, Play Fields, Open Space Act, 1985 prohibits utilization for parks of said area for the purpose of residential sites.
4. Commission heard learned counsels and perused the impugned order passed by Forum below in CC/356/2018, dated 09.01.2020. Now Commission has to decide whether impugned order passed by the Forum below is contrary to facts and law as appealed by OP1 MUDA?
5. Admittedly, on 25.01.1992 appellant/OP1 MUDA has executed registered Lease cum Sale Agreement. On 12.11.1992 City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) has handed over the possession of the said property to complainant and after getting sanction of the building plan complainant/respondent no.1 on 17.03.1997 had obtained the Building Completion Certificate and paid property tax to Mysore City Corporation from then. The Khata was registered on 09.12.1997. All these aspects are not in dispute at all. The only dispute is related to the 5 Appeal No.345/2020 execution of title deed by OP1/Appellant in favour of complainant/respondent no.1. It is to be noted herein that appellant/OP1 MUDA except oral allegation had not placed a single document to prove that the alleged property falls within the area earmarked for civic amenities. On the other hand, complainant/respondent no.1 had produced as many as 10 documents to prove his case. Complainant/respondent no.1 had also produced those documents for reference of this Commission. Furthermore, the complainant/respondent no.1 had produced copy of the Order dated 08.07.2013 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.16687/2010 (LB- RES) filed by one Mr.M.Mahadeva who is the purchaser of the site bearing no.5, Block No.33, Measuring East to West 60 Ft North to South 40 ft situated at SBM, Srirampura 2 nd Stage, Mysuru from the original allotte. In the said proceedings, MUDA Authority submits before the Hon'ble court that Government has already issued an order to MUDA vide Annexure-Z dated 15.09.2012 directing the MUDA to regularize and issue title deeds to the persons/owners of the properties subject to other statutory compliance. Thereby Hon'ble High Court held that - "in view of the matter as per the letter at Annexure-Z dated 15.09.2012 issued by the Government, it is the 6 Appeal No.345/2020 duty on the part of the respondent authority MUDA to issue title deed and such action has to be complied within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order". Accordingly, MUDA had executed the title deed on 12.05.2014 to the said M.Mahadeva and the copy of the same is produced before the Commission. Additionally complainant/respondent no.1 had produced the letter dated 15.09.2012 issued by Government of Karnataka wherein stated as thus:
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁæªÀ£É ¢£ÁAPÀ:
23.09.2009 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ G¯ÉèÃR (z) gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁæªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15.09.2008 gÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è wêÀiÁð¤¹zÀAvÉ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÀªÀĸÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ËºÁzÀðAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV §UɺÀj¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16.02.2008 gÀAzÀÄ gÀa¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ G¥À¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ £ÀqɹzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.08.2008 gÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½AiÀÄ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£ÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ªÀ»¹PÉÆnÖzÀÝ d«Ää£À ¨É¯É (JPÀgÉAiÉÆAzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.31,460/-)AiÀÄ JAlÄ ¥ÀlÄÖ zÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¹ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ F §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è£À ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ½UÉ SÁvÉ, PÀlÖqÀ £ÀPÉë, ºÀPÀÄÌ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ w½¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ £ÀqÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ vÉÆqÀPÀÄ GAmÁUÀzÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ MqÀA§rPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¹ J¸ï.©.JA. £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è£À ªÀiÁ¥ÁðqÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ.
6. It is pertinent to note here that according to the above stated letter issued by Government of Karnataka, MUDA Authority/appellant herein had executed title deed on 12.05.2014 to one of the purchaser of site bearing No.5, Block No.33, Measuring East to West 60 ft North to South 40 ft 7 Appeal No.345/2020 situated at SBM Layout, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Mysuru. The complainant/respondent no.1 site is also situated at the same block, same layout i.e, Block No.33, Situated at SBM Layout, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Mysuru. As such the appellant/OP1 MUDA failed to explain before the Commission as to why title deed was not executed to the complainant/respondent no.1 inspite of Government order issued to MUDA on 15.09.2012 or failed to explain as to why the alleged site is kept exceptional for the execution of title deed. Though appellant/OP1 MUDA contend that they have received a report by the Urban Scheme Department that the area is specifically reserved for parks, but looking into the entire papers placed before this Commission nowhere bring into being such document. As such all these aspects draw an adverse inference against the OP1/appellant.
In our view, it is for the MUDA/Appellant to prove his contentions supported with relevant documents. Furthermore, the appellant MUDA has slept over for more than 25 years and all of a sudden in the year 2018 MUDA has issued an endorsement letter to the complainant/respondent no.1 by constituting the alleged property as the CA sites. Complainant/respondent no.1 is in the possession of the alleged property till today by constructing their dream home by paying 8 Appeal No.345/2020 taxes. They have spent their considerable life-time and earning towards the alleged property. It is at this later stage that MUDA is alleging that the schedule properties are earmarked as Park area. If so the alleged property is earmarked as park area, then appellant/OP1 MUDA should not have executed registered lease cum sale agreements in the year 1992 and hand over possession of the same to the complainant/respondent no.1. Thus by looking into all these aspects it is clear that the property is not earmarked as park area and if so the appellant/OP1 MUDA would not execute the documents stated supra in favour of complainant/respondent no.1. Thus in such view of the matter Commission did not find any irregularity in the impugned order passed by Forum below, since the Forum below appreciated the evidence in right perception and recorded sound reasons while passing the impugned order. With such conclusion we proceed to dismiss the appeal with no order as to cost.
7. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to Forum below for needful.
9Appeal No.345/2020
8. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady Member Judicial Member President *GGH*