State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Narne Constructions (P) Ltd., vs 1. Smt Jaspal Kaur W/O Satinder Singh And ... on 29 July, 2013
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.619 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.68 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD Between M/s Narne Constructions (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Col.(Retd) N.Ranga Rao No.10 Gunrock Enclave Secunderabad-009 Appellant/opposite party A N D 1. Smt Jaspal Kaur W/o Satinder Singh Aged about 58 years, Occ: Service, 2. Satinder Singh, S/o Harwand Singh aged about 66 yrs, Occ: Business Both are R/o H.No.6-2-238/2, First Floor, Chintal Basthi, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-034 Respondents/complainants Counsel for the Appellant M/s K.R.Koteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent M/s Gopi Rajesh Associates QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE TWENTY NINETH OF JULY TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The opposite party is the appellant and the appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum whereby the applicant was directed to refund the ULC Caution Deposit of `1,83,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum together with costs of `2,000/-.
2. The respondents purchased a plot no.220 in Sy.No.218/4 and 218/5 in the extent of 305 sq.yards in Central park Phase No.II of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District. The respondents paid an amount of `4,66,000/- towards cost of plot, registration and other charges and `1,83,000/- towards caution deposit of ULC on 20.6.2007. The appellant company issued receipt dated 20.6.2007 in favour of the respondent. The appellant registered the sale deed in favour of the respondents on 25.7.2007 in respect of the plot. The respondents obtained approval of layout in the month of March 2009, under land regulation scheme by paying an amount of `74,700/- towards land regulation charges. The appellant failed to get approval from HUDA and other authorities. The respondents paid the amount towards land regulation charges despite the appellant received the caution deposit towards ULC charges and as such respondents along with other plot owners association got issued notice on 23.9.2009 demanding for return of the caution deposit received from them towards ULC charges.
3. The appellant company collected from each of the plot owners a sum of `360/`400/-
per sq.yd for the purpose of obtaining approval under ULC and HUDA and assured them that it would refund the amount in case it failed to obtain approval from ULC and HUDA.
The Special Officer, ULC informed the respondents and other plot owners that clearance certificate cannot be issued as the application filed by the appellant has not reached to 10(6) and the Sy.Nos wherein the plots are situated is not covered under ULC Act, 1976. The association got issued notice dated 7.10.2009 to the appellant to return the amount collected towards ULC deposit and another notice on 10.10.2009 for which there was no reply from the appellant company.
The respondents and their association i.e., plot owners association had sent another notice on 17.11.2009 with the request to refund ULC deposit. As also they had sent another notice on 25.2.2010 which was followed by the notice sent on behalf of association on 23.9.2009, 7.10.2009 and 17.11.2009.
4. The appellant company issued reply on 4.3.2010 requesting the members of the association to come to its office on 11.3.2010 for discussion on the matter and the appellant company avoided to attend the meeting scheduled on 11.3.2010 stating that its CMD was not available. The respondents filed complaint seeking for return of the amount paid towards ULC caution deposit.
5. The appellant company resisted the claim on the premise that it had to apply for tentative layout to HUDA and obtain sanction and it had to comply with the conditions and norms of layout, byelaws as prescribed by HUDA. One of the requirements of the terms of layout byelaws is submission of clearance certificate by the appellant company obtained from the ULC authorities to the effect the land does not come under purview of ULC Act.
At the time of submission of application, the issue of ULC was not focused and the appellant company succeeded in obtaining sanction of tentative layout. The appellant had commenced the development work in time and completed it by 2003 as also it had submitted the layout for final approval which HUDA kept pending till 2006.
6. The Special Officer, ULC Hyderabad issued notice to the original pattadar of land in the month of December 2006 and the issue was raked up on an application dated 18.1.2006 made M/s Shilpa Estates Pvt Ltd. The original pattadars were directed to file declaration and on being informed the appellant engaged its advocate to represent the matter on behalf of the pattadar of the lands. The competent authority felt that there was surplus land and issued order vide proceedings NO.H/151 to 153/76 dated 28.12.2006 declaring Central Park-II lands as surplus and the District Collector was directed to take over the surplus land.
7. The appellant preferred appeal before Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue by impleading itself as a party. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Special Officer for fresh adjudication. At the time the appellant came to know that the government was contemplated to repeat the ULC Act. In the interregnum period, the government of AP exempted all those lands in the cases which had not reached 10(6) stage, from the purview of ULC Act. The respondents taken a mistaken view and got issued the notice. The entire proceedings were brought into the knowledge of the respondents association. Most of the members of the association except the respondents had not made reimbursement of the expenses incurred to prosecute the ULC proceedings.
8. The plot owners association had committed grave mistake by approaching HUDA by filing application under LRS due to which final layout being processed can never be considered and sanctioned. The final approval of the project has been put in jeopardy. The appellant company had spent huge money for prosecuting the ULC proceedings and received bald and baseless allegations.
The members of the plot owners association are liable for damages to the appellant company. The respondents are not entitled for compensation and other reliefs and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant company.
9. The respondent no.1 has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A24.
On behalf of the appellant company, Col.N.Ranga Rao, its Chairman and Managing Director filed his affidavit and the copy letter dated 22.3.2010 addressed to the respondent, Ex.B1.
10. Both the counsel filed written arguments.
11. Aggrieved by the order of the Distinct Forum, the opposite party has filed the appeal contending that the appellant executed sale deed in favour of the respondents and delivered possession of the plot and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. It is contended that the appellant had spent the amount of `1,83,000/-
paid by the respondents towards caution deposit, for prosecution of cases filed before ULC and that the plot owners association promised the appellant that they would bear the expenses for prosecution of case. It is contended that the respondents cannot blame for refund of the amount and that there is no cause of action for the respondents to file the complaint
12. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
13. The respondent no.1 joined the scheme Central Park floated by the appellant company by paying the sale consideration on the development charges of the plot bearing No.220 as also a sum of `1,83,000/- towards ULC caution deposit. In the receipt dated 20.6.2007 the details of different heads under which the amount was received by the appellant company. The appellant issued receipt dated 21.9.2007 to the effect it had received the entire amount in respect of the plot and there was no due from the respondent no.1. There is no dispute in regard to payment of the amount by the respondent no.1. In the month of March 2009 the respondents obtained approval under land regulation scheme by paying an amount of `74,700/-
towards land regulation charges.
14. The respondents claimed the amount of `1,83,000/- paid to the appellant towards ULC deposit as they had paid a sum of Rs.74,700/- towards land regulation charges. Admittedly, the appellant had not obtained final layout before launching the scheme basing on a tentative layout which was to be finalized subject to the appellant meeting requirement of norms of layout byelaws as prescribed by HUDA. One of such requirements is submission of clearance certificate from the ULC authorities. It is not disputed that the appellant had not submitted clearance certificate from ULC authorities. Meanwhile the special officer and competent authority ULC Hyderabad issued notice to the original pattadars of the land which was purchased and formed part of Central Park. On behalf of the pattadars of the land, the appellant company prosecuted the proceedings as the pattadars suffered adverse order directing the District Collector to take possession of the land to surrender Central Park Lands which were declared surplus.
15. The appellant got itself impleaded and filed appeal before the Commissioner Land Revenue who set aside the order of the Special Officer and remitted back the matter to him. While the things stood so, the State Government exempted all those lands involved in the cases which did not reach 10(6) stage, from the purview of provisions of ULC Act.
16. As the land purchased by the appellants for development and launching of Central Park-II was exempted from the provisions of ULC Act, the appellant company cannot contend that the caution deposit received from the respondents, a sum of `1,83,000/- cannot be refunded since the respondents promised that they would not seek for refund of the amount which could be adjusted towards expenses incurred for prosecution of proceedings before ULC, by the appellant company. The appellant is estopped from contending that though the respondent had paid ULC deposit and land regulation charges, since the other plot owners had not paid the amount, it can retain the amounts paid by the respondents.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant company has relied upon the decision of this Commission in C.C.20 of 2008 in M.V.Bhaskar Rao Vs M/s Narne Constructions Pvt Ltd., and another decided on 10.11.2010 and the decision of the Honble National Commission Yash Bir Jaggi Vs Unitech Ltd., (2006) 4 CPJ (NC).
18. In Bhaskar Raos case this Commission held that sanction of ULC was not granted and as such relief sought for by the complainant could not be granted unless sanction was given by ULC and HUDA. In the case on hand, the question of sanciotn under ULC does not arise as the land covered by Central Park II is exempted from the purview of the provisions of ULC Act. The decision has no application to the facts of the case.
19. In Yash Bir Jaggis (supra) the National Commission held that purchaser of the plot agreed to pay in addition to the actual cost of the plot, the expenses incurred for electric service connection, water connection sewer connection or any other connections. The terms of the agreement provided for payment of such amount by the purchaser of the plot. IN the instant case, the ULC caution deposit was collected from the respondents on promise that it would be refunded to the respondents which however was not paid back to the respondents even after the government had exempted the land which comprises several plots including the plot sold to the respondents, from the purview of the provisions of ULC Act.
20. The proceedings before the ULC from the time of their being initiated on an application from M/s Shilpa Estates Pvt Ltd., which had sought for issuance of NOC, till the state government had exempted those lands covered under the cases which did not reach 10(6) stage, would go to show that the appellant company collected the amount of `1,83,000/- towards ULC deposit from the respondents and obligated to refund the amount to the respondents. As such, the appellant company by retaining the amount paid towards ULC caution deposit rendered deficient service. We do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the District Forum which had directed the appellant to refund caution deposit of `1,83,000/- with interest at 6% per annum thereon.
21. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt. 29.07.2013 కె.ఎం.కె*