State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Megacity Builders And Developers vs Smt Seetha Ratna K Rao on 19 February, 2010
I ~.:. : ,". ,:.~
:;,
;
"
1.Seetha Ratna K Rao W/o.K.Krishna Murthy, aged about 50 years, RI at Flat No.B-304, 'Adarsh Hill', Kumaraswamy Layout, Banlore 560 078.
1. Veena K Rao D/o.K.Ramachandra Rao, R/at Flat no.B-304, 'Adarsh· Hill', KUlnaraS\v81nyLayout, Bangalore 560 078.
These three appeals are filed by the appellant / Ops against the respondent / complainants in complaint Nos.1182/08, 1183/08 Lnel 1185/08 respectively to set aside the order dated 21 st July 2008 passed by the DF, Bangalore Urban whereby the OF allowed the said complaints directing the appellant / OP to refund Rs.85,000 1- together with interest at the rate of 16% pa from 29.9.1998 till realization with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.1 ,000/- to each of the respective complainants .. Therefore the appellant / OP has come up in t1 es~ appeals.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants 1 and 2 and perused the records. The appellant counsel contended that the impugned order passed by the DF IS perverse, illegal and incorrect and it calls for interference.
The contention of the appellant IS that the DF fails to understand and appreciate that the land has been duly converted from agricultural to non agricultural purposes, sites were formed and the same are identified for the purpose of registration before the competent authority for a value and the appellants having got registered the independent site in the respective names of the complainants. But the order passed by the DF for refund of the amount deposited by the respondent 1 complainants is incorrect.
Since the sites are formed and identified with specific num.bers and boundaries, question of not developing the property does not arise. Awarding of compensation with 16% interest per ann 1m and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,0001- with litigation expenses of RS.l 0001- to each of the complainants is totally in.correct and therefore according to the appellant these appeals are fit to be admitted as there is a law point involved in- these appeals.
Having heard the arguments of the appellant it is necessary to consider whether there is any prima facie case or good grounds so as to admit these appeals.
No doubt the respondent 1 complainants have approached the ,appellants after coming to know about the advertisements deposited the amounts as mentioned in their complaints. It seems that the land owners of the appellants have executed the GPA in their favour. No doubt the appellants have executed the ,~
- .
registered sale deeds in their favour and issued the possession certificates. The grievance of the respondents is that they have invested their hard earned money about a decade back but they are unable enjoy the fruits in spite of the fact that the appellant / Ops having executed the registered sale deeds and issuing the possession certificates but the appellants have failed to put them in actual physical possession which amounts only to a symbolic possession. P.aragraph (8) of the impugned order clearly observed by the DF that the appellant / Ops are required to' obtain the permission from the concerned Deputy Commissioner for conversion agricultural land into non agricultural purpose but the Deputy Commissioner did not sanction them the permit?sion. , The land acquired by the OP later on 'taken over by BMRDA as well as BMICAPA. Therefore, the appellants themselves have admitted that they could not complete the said project. The appellan t / Ops efforts to get permission from the Revenue Department to convert the said agricultural land into non agricultural land also not fulfilled. Since no developmental activities have taken place in the said township the respondents have sought for the amount paid by them 10 years back. Actual physical possessions were not given to th~ respondent / complainants by the appellant but the possession certificates which were given are only symbolic.
The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainants themselves are kept mum for 10 years without ascertaining their rights of possession cannot be accepted and the same does not hold water. Even if any registered sale deeds have been executed only symbolic possesslOns were given. But subsequent development by the BMRDAand by the BMICAPAgoes to show that the appellants lose their right of ownership. Therefore, the DF has rightly passed the order by allowing the complaints filed by the respective complainants against the appellants. Hence we find no good ground to entertain these appeals. Acc,ordingly,we pass the following:
Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission. The amount deposited by the appellant / Ops in these appeals shall be transferred to the DF to enable the DF to pay the same to the respective respondent / complainants in these appeals after due notice to them.
~ M.E..: