State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. M/S. Countryside Reators vs 1. Nand Kumar Singh on 11 January, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.428 OF 2019
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.07 OF 2014, DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY
Between:
Nand Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Laxmi Prasad,
Aged about 52 years,
Occ.: Service in Public Sector Undertaking,
R/o H.No.1-4-180/A-23/2,
Old Alwal, Opp.: Loyola College, BHEL MIG Colony,
Secunderabad-500 010.
...Appellant/Complainant
And :
1.M/s Countryside Realtors India Pvt. Limited, Regd. No.47173 under Companies Act, 1956, Represented by its Director, Sri K.N.Simha, S/o Sri K.Suryanarayana, Aged about 43 years, Regd. Office at Plot No.3, Amar Housing Society, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 033.
2. K.N.Simha, S/o Sri K.Suryanarayana, Aged 43 years, Occ.: Director of M/s Countryside Realtors India Pvt., Limited, Regd. Office at Plot No.3, Amar Housing Society, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 033.
3. Mr.Masood Hassan, S/o Sri Mohd. Hussain, Aged about 32 years, Occ.: Director, Countryside Realtors India Pvt., Limited, Regd. Office at Plot No.3, Amar Housing Society, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 033.
4. Mrs. Shruti Singh, Aged about 35 years, Occ.: Director of M/s Countryside Realtors India Pvt., Ltd., Regd. Office at Plot No.3, Amar Housing Society, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 033.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: M/s. V.Sri Hari Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3:
Sri Ramanjaneyulu Counsel for the Respondents No.4/Opposite Party No.4 :----2
FA.NO. 435 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.07 OF 2014, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:
1. M/s Countryside Realtors India Pvt. Limited, Represented by its Director, Sri K.N.Simha, S/o Sri K.Suryanarayana, Regd. Office at Plot No.3, Amar Housing Society, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 033.
2. K.N.Simha, S/o Sri K.Suryanarayana, Aged 48 years, Occ.: Director of M/s Countryside Realtors India Pvt., Limited, Regd. Office at Plot No.3, Amar Housing Society, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 033.
3. Mr.Masood Hassan, S/o Sri Mohd. Hussain, Aged about 32 years, Occ.: Director, of Countryside Realtors India Pvt., Limited, Regd. Office at Plot No.3, Amar Housing Society, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 033......Appellant/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3
And:
1. Nand Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Laxmi Prasad, Aged about 52 years, Occ.: Service in Public Sector Undertaking, R/o H.No.1-4-180/A-23/2, Old Alwal, Opp.: Loyola College, BHEL MIG Colony, Secunderabad-500 010.
2. Mrs. Shruti Singh, Aged about 35 years, Occ.: Director of M/s Countryside Realtors India Pvt., Ltd., Regd. Office at Plot No.3, Amar Housing Society, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 033.
.....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.4 Counsel for the Appellants/ Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 :
M/s. K.Ramanjaneyulu Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant : Sri V. Sri Hari Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.4 :
Not necessary party.
QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL THURSDAY, THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ******* 3 Order : (Per Hon'ble Ranga Rao, Member-Judicial)
1. These are the appeals filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 21.06.2019 of the District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy, made in C.C.No.07/2014.
The Complainant filed FA.No.428/2019 and the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed FA.No.435/2019. As both these appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The succinct facts of the complaint are that the complainant was contemplating to purchase land for the construction of a house and was in search of the same in an around Mokila Village, Shankerpally Mandal, R.R.District area. He happened to visit the web site of Mokila Village in Shankarpalli road where certain layouts are being made and on contact by him, the opposite parties told him certain proposals luring and inducing with beneficial amenities extended by them. The complainant has visited the site in person and one of the opposite parties directors by showing the villas claimed to have been constructed nearby offered to purchase the land and explained the mode of payment to be made within certain period after the agreement of the sale to be entered in between the complainant and the opposite parties. Thus, the complainant has agreed to purchase a plot admeasuring 450 sq. yards.
4. The Complainant further submits accordingly, he has agreed to purchase a plot admeasuring 450 sq. yards in Sy.No.98 (Part) and 99 at Mokila Village and Gram Panchayat, Shankarpalli Mandal, R.R.District form the opposite parties who claimed and made to believe that they are the sole and absolute owners and developers of all that agricultural land in the said survey admeasuring Ac. 29.09 gts.
5. The complainant further submits that he has entered into an agreement of sale on 23.06.2013 for a total sale consideration of 4 Rs.29.25 lakhs @ Rs.6,500/- per sq. yard with the opposite parties and it was further agreed that by both the parties that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- would be paid by the complainant towards provision of amenities in the community in four equal instalments. The opposite parties have also agreed to execute the sale deed within 20 days from the date of agreement of sale. As part of sale consideration, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5.85 lakhs to the opposite parties on 23.06.2013 i.e. on the day of execution of agreement of sale. The complainant further paid a sum of Rs.9.00 lakh on 15.07.2013 towards further part of the sale consideration to the opposite parties vide cheque No.672462 drawn on State Bank of India and he is filing the receipt as proof for consideration of the Commission.
6. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties having received the above sum handedover the purported copy of layout (DTLP No.2306/2007/29-2008/H), in respect of the above plot offered to sell him. Inspite of his repeated requests, the opposite parties did not furnish him the validity of layout, demarcation of plots in layout etc. and other details sought for by him. However, the opposite parties claimed that the said layout is approved by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and is valid, but, they suppressed many other facts including validity and the jurisdiction of the aforesaid layout. The complainant addressed a letter on 14.07.2013 to the opposite parties asking certain clarifications including separate plot demarcation, listing of plots numbers, dimensions of the block in which plot No.72 allotted to the complainant, which is shown in the proposed layout, the merging of the blocks and road locations, changed but no reply was given by the opposite parties for the same. The complainant again addressed another letter on 17.07.2013 to the opposite parties asking them to send him a copy of the layout which would become part of the sale deed with title, draft DTCP, approval reference number, duly signed by opposite parties but vague reply was given by the opposite parties for the 5 same, vide their letter dated 20.07.2013, when the main point on DTCP approved layout similar to HMDA was not answered.
7. The complainant further submits that since the opposite parties failed to furnish the relevant details of the layout and other details sought for vide letters dated 14.07.2013, 25.07.2013 and 01.08.2013, he entertained some doubt and had enquired with the DTCP authorities and found that the draft approval layout was obtained during the year 2008 and subsequently, no final approval was obtained within the specified period and in the meantime, the jurisdiction got changed from DTCP to HMDA and all the related records have been transferred to HMDA authorities. So, the complainant addressed a letter on 12.08.2013 to the opposite parties requesting them to return back his advance amount of Rs.14.85 lakhs with 12% interest from the date of payments made to the opposite parties. As there was no reply from the opposite parties, the complainant approached the concerned Directorate of Town and Country Planning office at Hyderabad through a representation dated 16.08.2013 under RTI Act, asking about the genuiness of layout and to find out the truth or otherwise of the alleged layout. To his utter surprise, the authorities replied in writing vide their letter dated 28.08.2013 stating that the draft technical layout pattern (DTLP) was approved by their office in the year 2008 is not valid and at present it is not possible for sanction of final approval by DT and CP as the Mokale Gram Panchayat falls under the jurisdiction of HMDA and further stated the validity of the said layout is expired. The complainant was shocked to know about the same.
8. The complainant further submits that he has finally sent a letter to the opposite parties on 31.08.2013 requesting the opposite parties to return back the money paid to them to which opposite parties have not given any reply.
9. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties have collected Rs.14,85,000/- by cheating the complainant knowing fully well that the plots made in Survey No. 98 (Part) & 99 6 on agricultural land are against the sanction of DTCP. He is a middle class officer serving in public sector and with his hard earned money he had purchased the residential plot in the opposite parties venture namely "Lakeside Layout". All the Directors of the opposite parties in collusion have played fraud on the complainant and it would be impossible for him to overcome this irreparable financial loss in the rest of his service and life. The behaviour and attitude of the opposite parties after the second payment was not fair. All the details sought for are received with most negligent manner displaying that they (opposite parties) have decided to cause financial loss to him.
10. The attempts of the opposite parties were only to attract and lure the innocent customers, thus, cheating and causing deficiency in service, should have no place in the society. It is averred that it is the total failure on the part of the opposite parties to execute and register the plot even after advance payment and the complainant is ready to pay the balance of payment. But, the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice for which the complainant had to undergo untold mental agony. Hence the complaint.
11. On earlier occasion, the complaint was filed and despite notices sent to the opposite parties and publication, the opposite parties did not contest the matter as such the District Forum pronounced its order dated 07.07.2014 directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.14.85 lakhs with interest @ 12 p.a. from 15.07.2013 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by this, the opposite parties preferred an appeal vide FA No.212/2016 against the order of this District Forum stating that they were very much doing their business in the same address but not received the notice of complainant/Forum. Therefore, the appeal has been admitted by the Hon'ble State Commission, keeping in view to afford an opportunity to opposite parties to file their written version and lead the evidence. However, conditionally on payment 7 of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant. The appeal was allowed on 23.10.2017 and remanded back for further necessary action.
12. This time, the opposite parties combinedly filed their written version and admitted that the complainant entered into agreement of sale, dated 23.06.2013 for a total sale consideration of R.s29.25 lakhs to purchase Plot No.72 admeasuring 450 sq. yards in Sy.No.98(Part) and 99 of Mokila Village, Shankerpally Manda, R.R.District with additional cost of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid towards amenities in the community. Subsequently, the complainant paid Rs.5.85 lakhs on 23.06.2013 and Rs.9.00 lakhs on 15.07.2013 as per Agreement of Sale.
13. The opposite parties submit that the Agreement of Sale dated 23.06.2013 and Agreement of Sale cum Development dated 30.07.2013 is signed by only one party of the opposite parties even though the document contains two names of the opposite parties. Hence, these documents are not binding in nature and cannot be enforced in a court of law. Further submits that the complainant himself is a defaulter as he has not paid the entire sale consideration within 20 days. Hence, he cannot claim compensation or interest from the opposite parties. Further the opposite parties submit that they are ready to register the document in favour of the complainant, if the complainant is ready to pay remaining sale consideration with interest.
14. The opposite parties further submit that they obtained DTCP permission in the year 2008 and later the Mokila Village was merged with HMDA limits and the opposite parties sold off many plots to the prospective purchasers and the opposite parties handed over the layout copy to the complainant after receipt of Rs.9.00 lakh from the complainant and further stated that the terms mentioned in the Agreement of Sale is reciprocal in nature and the complainant must perform his part of contract as per Sec.51 of Contract Act and then only the opposite parties obligation will come into picture. Further the opposite parties 8 submit that they never denied or refused to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties categorically mentioned that if the complainant has any doubt in the layout, he should not have paid the amount and signed the document by giving 24 months for development of property and further clarified that due to Telangana agitation, the land rates had come down and thereafter only the complainant was trying to avoid the payment by showing layout reasons. In fact the layout details were clearly mentioned in the Agreement of Sale and during the course of enquiry, complainant known all the details from the neighbours who purchased the properties from the opposite parties that they applied for regularization of Plot to HMDA by incurring their own expenditure. Once, again, the opposite parties submit that they are ready to reimburse the amount by deducting necessary charges only and further made it clear that the opposite parties did not collect the amount for interest purpose or hand loan purpose as such he has no right to seek recovery of money along with interest and compensation and finally submits that the complainant created cause of action in order to avoid payment to the opposite parties as per the Agreement dated 23.06.2013. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the complainant not approached this Forum with clear hands. Hence, prayed to dismiss the case.
15. During the course of trial, the complainant had filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A16. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 filed their evidence affidavit and the opposite party No.4 who is an employee had left the Organization as per the information furnished by the Counsel for the opposite parties. However, they have not filed any documentary evidence. Both the parties filed their respective written arguments and advance oral arguments also.
16. The District Commission after considering the material available on record, "allowed the complaint in part, directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to execute registration of sale deed in terms of Agreement of Sale, dated 23.06.2013. Simultaneously, the 9 complainant is directed to pay the balance sale consideration to the opposite parties and also bear additional expenditure if any for regularization of the plot by the competent authorities and there shall be no order as to the interest compensation and costs. Time for compliance is two months".
17. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant/Complainant preferred the present appeal vide FA No.428/2019 with the following grounds:-
The order of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy is contrary to law and facts of the case.
The District Forum ought to have verified that the respondents/opposite parties did not obtain any layout from DTCP as on the date of the Agreement of sale or subsequently or till date.
The District Forum grossly erred in observing that the appellant/complainant filed complaint alleging some suspicious, irregularities and doubts in the layout of the respondents/opposite parties venture at Mokila Village, as against the fact that there is no approved layout by DTCP. The District Forum grossly erred in holding that the respondents/opposite parties are ready to execute registration of the sale deed on payment of balance of sale consideration which is mischievous as they did not obtain layout from the competent authority.
The District Forum ought to have observed that there is no approved layout by DTCP and any registration of the plot without approved layout is illegal.
The District Forum erred in holding that the appellant/complainant would bear the expenses for regularization of his plot which is against the terms and conditions agreed between him and the opposite parties under the agreement of sale.
The District Forum failed to note no regularization is possible without their being any layout and development.10
The District Forum failed to observe that the respondents have not developed the land into plots and further there is no layout approved by the Competent Authority and the land is still barren land without laying the roads. The District Forum without appreciating the facts of the case on proper perspective held that there is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ignoring the fact the opposite parties contrary to the terms of the agreement, having received huge amounts failed to obtain any layout or laid the land into house plots etc., which his sufficient enough to show that there is breach of contract and same amounts to unfair trade practice.
The District Forum ought to have observed that the opposite parties having received the huge amounts from the prospective plot purchases left them to lurch and thus, compelling them to enter into litigation. The District Forum failed to observe the conduct of the opposite parties and came to erroneous conclusion that both parties agreed to fulfil their obligation in respect of the agreement of sale dated 23.06.2013 ignoring the fact that the opposite parties duped the complainant by receiving the huge amount.
The observation of District Forum and its direction to execute registration of sale deed in terms of agreement of sale is like searching water in oasis as there is no venture existing and no approved lay out obtained by the opposite parties.
The order passed by the District Forum is totally based on surmises and on figment of imagination without their being any basis and the direction to bear additional expenditure for regularization and to pay balance of sale consideration to opposite parties would tantamount further entering into unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
The District Forum ought to have analysed and passed the order as how the complainant is directed to pay balance of 11 consideration in the absence of any approved layout from competent authority laying the land into plots and directing the complainant to bear the regularization expenses. The District Forum ought to have observed that the purported DTCP layout was not even valid as on the date of agreement of sale and even after lapse of 05 years, no HMDA approval is obtained.
With the above grounds, the appellant/complainant prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the District Commission and to allow the complaint as prayed for basing on his submissions made in the grounds of the appeal and pass such other order or orders as this State Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice.
18. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants/Complainants preferred the present appeal vide FA No.435/2019 with the following grounds:-
The District Forum, Ranga Reddy, is contrary to law and facts of the case as such the same is liable to be set aside. The said order was liable to set aside as a direction to comply agreement of sale dated 23.06.2013 after six years on the same terms and conditions is illegal. The order of the District Forum on one hand observing the failure to comply the conditions by the Respondent/complainant in one part as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale and on the other hand directing the appellants/ops to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and the further direction to the complainant to pay remaining balance of sale consideration to the appellants/opposite parties and also the further direction to the complainant to bear expenses for regularization of the plot is illegal and against the settled principles of law 12 The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint when it observed that the complainant failed to perform his part of the obligation as per the terms of the contract. The District Forum granted relief which was not sought for in his complaint and further granting of relief not prayed/sought for is illegal and unjust. The District Forum, failed to consider the fact that the complainant demanded for payment of amount only even though the District Commission suggested for the settlement of issue through negotiations.
The District Forum passed the impugned order on assumptions and presumptions and the same is against settled principles of law.
The appellants have already deposited Rs.7,17,500/- in FA No.212/2016 apart from the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- and on the whole the appellants/opposite parties deposited an amount of Rs.7,42,500/- and the complainant asked for refund of an amount of R.s14,85,000/- and thus, the deposited amount is half of the amount demanded by the complainant, due to protracted litigation the appellants/opposite parties sustained severe financial loss and the amount was blocked due to which they have no opportunity to utilize the said amount for investment purpose.
The District Forum ought to have observed that the complainant ought to have approached the Civil Court for specific performance of the contract of the agreement of sale. The District Forum ought to have observed that appellants/opposite parties are ready to reimburse the amount of Rs.14,85,000/- and they have already deposited Rs.7,42,500/- and they will credit the remaining amount. With the above grounds appellants/oppsotie aprties prayed this State Commission to allow this appeal and to set aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 passed in CC 07/2014 and to pass appropriate order or orders as this Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of 13 the case in the interest of justice or else the appellant will be put to irreparable loss.
19. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
20. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. [[
21. To decide the point for consideration, we have carefully examined the whole material borne by the record and the same manifest that the complainant with the intention of constructing a house wants to purchase land for the same at Mokila Village area, Shankarpalli Mandal, R.R.District. In that connection he has visited the website of Mokila Village in Shankerpally Road and came to know certain layouts are being made. So he contacted the opposite parties who offered the complainant to sell a plot admeasuring 450 sq. yards with beneficial amenities to be extended by them to the said plot. The complainant agreed to purchase the said plot situated in Sy.No.98 (Part) & 99 at Mokila Village and Grampanchayat, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for a total sale consideration of Rs.29,25,000/-. On 23.06.2013 he entered into Ex.A1 Agreement of the sale with the opposite parties and towards part sale consideration, he paid initially on the said date a sum of Rs.5,85,000/-. Subsequently, towards further part amount of sale consideration, he paid Rs.9,00,000/-. Ofcourse, the opposite parties admitted receipt of the said amounts totally Rs.14,85,000/-.
22. It is the specific case of the complainant that the opposite parties after receiving the second payment of Rs.9,00,000/- gave him the purported copy of the layout (DTLP No.2306/2007/29- 2008/H) in respect of the plot offered to sell him. He repeatedly, requested the opposite parties to furnish him validity of the layout, demarcation of plots in layout but the opposite parties did not furnish the same to him. Therefore, he addressed Ex.A5 letter on 14.07.2013 to the opposite parties asking them certain clarifications including separate plot demarcation, listing of plots 14 Numbers, dimensions of the plots in which plot No.72 allotted to him, is shown in the layout, the merging of blocks and road locations but, there was no reply from the opposite parties. So, he addressed Ex.A7 letter/email to the opposite parties asking them to send copy of the layout which would become part of the sale deed with title, draft DTCP, approval reference duly signed by the opposite parties for which opposite parties gave a vague reply under Ex.A8 letter/email dated 20.07.2013, without answering the main point on DTCP approved layout similar to HMDA.
23. It is the further specific case of the complainant since the opposite parties failed to furnish the relevant details of the layout and other details sought for through various letters dated 14.07.2013 (Ex.A6), 25.07.2013 (Ex.A9) and 01.08.2013 (Ex.A10), he entertained doubt and approached the concerned Directorate of Town and Country Planning office at Hyderabad through a representation, dated 16.08.2013 under RTI Act, asking them about the genuiness of the layout, for which the Public Information Officer of the said office under Ex.A15 letter, furnished the information stating that the Draft Technical Layout Pattern (DTLP) was approved by their office in the year 2008 is not valid at present and it is not possible for sanction of final approval by the DT & CP as the Mokila Grampanchayat falls under the jurisdiction of HMDA. The complainant emphatically contends that all the Directors of the opposite parties in collusion have played fraud on him and the opposite parties have collected the amount of Rs.14,85,000/- by cheating him knowing fully well that the plots made in survey No.98 (Part) & 99 on agriculture land are against the sanction of the DTCP. Having come to know the fact that the draft approval of the layout was obtained during the year 2008 and subsequently no final approval was obtained within the specified period and even the said draft approval is not valid, he addressed Ex.A13 letter/email dated 12.08.2013 to the opposite parties requesting them to refund him the amount of Rs.14,85,000/- with 12% interest from the dates of the payments made to them. But there was no reply from the opposite parties and they have not 15 refunded the above amount to him. The same amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards him. The complainant also contends that the opposite parties lured and induced him to purchase plot No.72 admeasuring 450 sq. yards by saying that beneficial amenities would be provided to his plot along with other plots in their purported lake side venture under the guise of they obtained approved layout. The said attitude of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice for which he is entitled to just compensation. Hence, he filed the complaint seeking the reliefs mentioned in it.
24. But on the other hand, it is the case of the opposite parties that it is agreed in Ex.A1 Agreement of the Sale, dated 23.06.2013, that they would execute the register sale deed in favour of the complainant for the subject plot after 20 days from the date of agreement of the sale and the complainant has to pay the balance of the sale consideration on the date of the execution of the sale deed. The complainant dragged the matter under the pretext of seeking untenable clarifications about the layout, without paying balance of sale consideration though they are ready to execute the registered sale deed for the subject plot.
25. The point that needs consideration is whether there is truth in the version of the complainant about the alleged attitude of the opposite parties of not furnishing the clarifications sought by him?
26. It is an admitted fact that opposite parties executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale, dated 23.06.2013 in favour of the complainant offering to sell the subject plot No.72. At page No.2 of Ex.A1 Agreement of sale at para No.2 it is mentioned that "the vendor (opposite parties) is the sole, absolute and peaceful owner and developer of agricultural land in Sy. No.'s 98 (part) & 99 admeasuring Ac.19-09gts., situated at Mokila Village, Shankerpally Mandal, R.R.District.
At para No.3, it is mentioned that the vendor (opposite parties) has obtained layout permission for the schedule property.
1627. It is quite common for a purchaser of a residential plot such as the complainant herein from somebody such as the opposite parties herein, to know the ins and outs about the title of the said property and whether the alleged layout which said to be have been obtained by the opposite parties from the DTCP authorities, before paying the balance of sale consideration and before execution of sale deed for the said property. In that way, there is nothing unnatural on the part of the complainant seeking necessary clarifications.
28. Ex.A6 is the copy of the letter dated 14.07.2013. The said letter is addressed by the complainant herein to the opposite parties.
A perusal of the said letter shows that the complainant sought the clarifications for purchase of plot No.72 at Lakeside View at Mokila Village. For ready reference we are extracting the contents of the said letter :-
"After going through the documents, the following observations are made and they requires clarification from your side before I make any further payments:
1. The separate plot demarcation layout given by you does not have any reference to the referred approved layout nor has any title, survey No. etc.,
2. Referred approved layout does not contain any listings of plot numbers and hence plot No.72 and its boundary as mentioned under "Schedule of Property" of Agreement of Sale" could not be ascertained in the above referred approved layout.
3. Dimensions of the Block in which Plot No.72 is shown in the proposed detailed layout (which is not approved by any Govt.
Agency) does not match with cumulative dimensions of various plots shown in the blocks.
4. Some of the Blocks have been merged and road location has been changed in your proposed detailed layout. This makes the 17 approved layout and proposed detailed layout quite different from each other.
You are, therefore, requested to clarify each points and confirm the linking of your proposed detailed layout to the DTCP approved layout along with Registration document on an urgent basis so as to make the balance payments as per agreement of sale and complete the registration of Plot No.72.
29. Ex.A7 copy of the email dated 17.07.2013 shows that the same is addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties requesting opposite parties to send the copy of the layout and draft DTCP approval reference number, duly signed by the opposite parties.
30. Ex.A9 letter, dated 25.07.2013 shows that the complainant sought some other clarifications from the opposite parties about the second agreement of sale cum development dated 30.07.2013 which is marked as Ex.A11.
The contents of Ex.A11 letter are extracted below for ready reference:
"Some of other observations are as follows:-
a) The agreement of sale executed and handedover to me mentions Sy.No.s 98 (Part) and 99, whereas, the Draft Sale Deed mentions Sy.No.'s 98(Part) and 99 (Part).
b) As club is not appearing in the "Lakeside" layout at # Si.No.7 of Sale Deed, the use of Common facilties and amenities in the layout does not address the concern of using the Club House and the interest of VENDEE is therefore, not protected.
c) Your layout Map (As attached) should refer to Original draft layout approval DTLP...... along with SY.No.'s....... and with complete address of your Company and it should be signed by both VENDOR and VENDEE.
One genuine concern still remains is that you and your officials had indicated the development of this DTCP approved layout similar to HMDA in all respects, but now you are backing out in providing 18 Solar Fencing & Underground Electricity cabling, but collecting charges for club & Swimming pool facilities which is not acceptable to me.
Pl. clarify the above issues to enable to proceed further".
31. Ex.A10 copy of the letter dated 01.08.2013 shows that the same is the letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties.
The relevant content of the said letter is extracted bellow for ready reference:
"Received your mail dated 31st July 2013. You have not sent the draft copy of the sale deed. You have also not sent the layout which contains Reference to the correct Survey Number, Draft Layout number and address of your Company.
Matter most urgent. I have made arrangements to pay the balance amount long back pending clarifications from your side.
After receiving the revised draft copies, we will be able to comment on the Contents of the documents.
Matter is most urgent and requires your immediate action".
32. The above contents of the letters mentioned supra makes it abundantly clear that the complainant sought the relevant clarifications from the opposite parties. It is not the case of the opposite parties that they have furnished clarifications about the aspects raised by the complainant. Admittedly, nothing is filed by the opposite parties to show that they have provided clarifications for the aspects sought by the complainant. Further Ex.A10 letter, dated 01.08.2013 very clearly shows that the complainant has made arrangements to pay the balance of amount/balance of remaining sale consideration long back pending clarifications from the side of opposite parties. This falsifies the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant protracted the matter under the pretext of seeking certain clarifications of the alleged layout, without paying the balance of sale consideration. Thus, from Ex.A10 letter, it is crystal clear that the complainant was always 19 ready to pay the balance of consideration, provided the opposite parties furnish the required clarifications to go for the execution of the sale deed for the subject plot in favour of the complainant by the opposite parties.
33. Ex.A4 is the copy of the proposed plan and Ex.A5 is the copy of the layout. A perusal of the same buttresses the contention of the complainant that there is no separate plot demarcation, listing of plot numbers, dimensions of the block in which plot No.72 is allotted to the complainant is shown in the proposed layout, merging of the blocks and the change of the road locations.
34. Ex.A15 copy of the letter, dated 28.08.2013 shows that the same is addressed from the Public Information Officer, office of the Directorate of Town Planning and Country Planning. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, 2nd floor, Mythri Vihar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, addressed to the complainant.
The contents of the said letter are extracted below for the ready reference:
"With reference to your application cited, received under the RTI Act, 2005 I furnish the following information to the points raised by you.
1) The Draft Technical Layout Pattern (DTLP) approved by this office in the year 2008 is not valid at present and it is not possible for sanction of final approval of DT & CP.
2) The Mokila G.P. falls under the jurisdiction of HMDA".
35. The above contents of Ex.A15 letter corroborates the version of the complainant that as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, there was no approved layout for the alleged venture stated to be made by the opposite parties. Collecting amounts from the purchasers of the plots such as the complainant herein and others for selling plots in the alleged venture under the guise that they (opposite parties) obtained approved layout for their venture amounts to unfair trade practice for which in our considered view the complainant herein is entitled to the just compensation.
2036. Ex.A16 copy of the letter, dated 31.08.2013 shows that the same is addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties. The contents of the said letter are extracted below for ready reference:-
"You have not replied to my earlier mail (trailing mail) sent to your office on 12.08.2013.
Further to this mail, I have obtained information under RTI Act, 2005 from DT & CP, Hyderabad regarding the validity of the above referred layout.
Pl find attached scan copies of my queries addressed to DT & CP and clarifications received from DT * CP.
It is very evidence that your suppressed many facts as given below:-
1. D.T.L.P.No.2306/2007/29-2008/H is not a valid layout on the day of entering into sale agreement.
2. It is not possible for your Company to obtain final approval for this draft layout from DTCP.
3. The Mokila G.P. falls under the jurisdiction of HMDA.
For these reasons, you are requested to return back Rs.14.85 lakhs paid to you along with interest of 12% immediately or obtain a fresh approval from HMDA for selling plot in your venture".
37. It is the contention of the complainant that though he addressed Ex.A16 letter to the opposite parties and requested to refund Rs.14.85 lakhs paid by him to them with interest @ 12%, by mentioning the relevant contents/ suppression of facts by the opposite parties and further though he requested them to obtain a fresh approval from HMDA for selling plot in their venture, there is no reply for the same form the opposite parties and the same amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards him and he is entitled to the reliefs sought by him in the complaint as prayed for and has prayed this State Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2014 passed in CC.07/2014 by the District Commission, Ranga Reddy and allowed this appeal and further to allow his complaint as prayed for. At this juncture it is to be mentioned that it is not the case of the opposite parties that they have obtained the fresh approval from HMDA for their venture to sell plot No.72 to the complainant.
38. Having considered the totality of the facts emerged from the evidence borne by record and in view of our aforestated discussion, 21 we are of the considered view that the District Forum gravely erred in appreciating the material evidence borne by record and granting the reliefs other than the ones sought in the complaint by the complainant. We are of further considered view that the complainant has proved his case, as such his complaint deserves to be allowed for the refund of the amount from the opposite parties paid by him to them. We further hold that the opposite parties have miserably failed to prove their case. As such, the appeal FA No.435/2019 filed by the opposite parties is liable to be dismissed and the appeal FA No.428/2019 filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed.
39. In the result, the appeal FA No.435/2019 filed by the opposite parties is dismissed.
The appeal FA No.428/2019 filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the District Commission passed in CC.No.07/2014.
The complaint CC 07/2014 is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to repay the amounts of Rs.5,85,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh only) from respective dates of payments which are 23.06.2013 and 15.07.2013 respectively, totalling Rs.14,85,000 with interest @ 9% per annum, till the opposite parties pays the above amounts.
The opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony undergone by him and further to pay the costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
Time for compliance is four weeks form the date of receipt of this order copy.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-JUDICIAL
Dt: 11.01.2024
*AD