State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Commissioner vs M.Mahadevappa on 17 March, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1687/2019 ( Date of Filing : 16 Dec 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 16/05/2019 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/135/2018 of District Mysore) 1. The Commissioner Mysore Urban Development Authority, J.L.B. road,Mysuru Karnataka ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M.Mahadevappa S/o Late Chhikkamadavappa, Aged about 73 years, R/a No.29/A, Block No.22, 1st cross, Madhuvana layout, Srirampura 2nd stage, Mysuru Karnataka 2. The President Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Office at no.23/A, Palace Model House, Indiranagar, Mysuru-570010 Karnataka ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 17 Mar 2023 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing:16.12.2019 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 NOs.1687 & 1688 of 2019 C O M M O N O R D E R BY HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT These two appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by OP1 in Consumer Complaint Nos.135 and 136 of 2018, aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore (for short District Forum/Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint) The brief facts of the case are: Complainant in CC/135/2018 i.e., Mr.M.Mahadevappa S/o Late Chikkamadappa holds the schedule property bearing no.29A measuring 40x40ft., situated in Block No.22 in Madhuvana Layout, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Mysuru and another complainant in CC/136/2018 i.e., Mr.T.M.Deepak, S/o T.P.Mallappa holds the schedule property bearing no.11 measuring 40x30ft., situated in same block in Madhuvana Layout, Mysuru. Complainants/respondent no.1 alleges that though OP1 MUDA had executed the registered Lease cum Sale Agreements in the year 1992, has failed to execute title deeds inspite of the repeated requests made by the them in respect of the schedule property. On 27.01.2018 OP1 MUDA had issued an endorsement to the complainants stating that the schedule property comes within the area which earmarked as Park. As such raised consumer complaints before the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP1/appellant herein. 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 admits that OP2 Society has floated layout in Block No.22 at Srirampura 2nd stage. MUDA further admits that it has executed Lease cum Sale Agreements in favour of complainants. It has handed over the possession of the said property to them and after obtaining permission from it, the complainants have constructed residential building on the schedule property. It is specific contention of OP1 MUDA is that it has not executed title deeds in favour of any one person including the complainants as the schedule property is earmarked as CA sites. Further contends that the endorsements issued by it to the complainants are in accordance with law. 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 appreciated documents produced by complainants i.e., allotment letter dated 11.01.1991 and 19.02.1989 issued by OP2 Society in respect of the schedule property, Registered Lease cum Sale Agreements dated 10.06.1992 and 11.06.1992, Possession Certificates dated 14.09.1992 and 19.10.1992, Building Construction Permission dated 29.04.2000 in favour of complainant to construct a residential house on the schedule property in CC/135/2018. After constructing the buildings, Mysuru City Corporation has issued completion certificate on 16.08.2002 in CC/135/2018. In addition to that the complainants have produced tax paid receipts. The complainant in CC/136/2018 has produced copies of registered sale deeds executed by original allotte Smt.Bharathi in favour of S.Nagendra, S.Nagendra in favour of Smt.K.P.Sugunamani and Smt.K.P.Sugunamani in favour of complainant T.M.Deepak. These sale deeds prove that the original allotte Smt.Bharathi has transferred her rights in the schedule property to S.Nagendra, then to Smt.K.P.Sugunamani and later has transferred her rights in favour of the complainant. Thereby hold that OP1 MUDA has not produced any reliable document to show that the schedule property is earmarked as CA site and thus directed OP1 MUDA to execute a registered sale deeds in favour of the complainants within two months from the date of the order in respect of the schedule property. Further directs in case, the OP1 MUDA fails to execute the sale deeds, it shall pay Rs.100/- per day as penalty to the complainants till execution. Further directed OP1 MUDA to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to each of the complainants within two months from the date of order. Otherwise, it shall carries interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing the complaints till realization.
Aggrieved by the said Order, these two appeals are filed by OP1 MUDA on the ground that, impugned order is contrary to law and facts since the alleged schedule property falls within the area earmarked for CA site and as per Section 39 of Karnataka Urban Development Act there is specific bar to alienate or transfer any CA site to any person. Thus sought for setting aside the impugned order.
Commission heard learned counsels and perused the impugned order passed by Forum below in Consumer Complaint Nos.135 and 136 of 2018, dated 16.05.2019. Now Commission has to decide whether impugned order passed by the Forum below is contrary to facts and law as appealed by OP1 MUDA?
It is undisputed fact that OP1/Appellant MUDA has executed registered lease cum sale agreement in favour of complainants/respondent no.1. It is also not in dispute that it has handed over the possession of the said property to complainants/respondent no.1 and after obtaining permission from it, the complainants/respondent no.1 has constructed residential buildings on the schedule property. The only dispute is related to execution of title deed by OP1/Appellant in favour of complainants/respondent no.1.
Appellant/OP1 MUDA contention is that as per Section 39 of Karnataka Urban Development Act there is a specific bar to alienate or transfer any CA site and the alleged schedule property falls within the area earmarked for CA site. As such execution of title deed is not possible with respect to schedule property. On the other hand, complainants/respondent no.1 contention is that the Forum below had elaborately and thoroughly examined the alleged stand of the appellant and passed the impugned order. Further contended that the appellant/OP1 MUDA had executed title deeds in respect of site nos.2, 3, 4, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 34, 41, 44, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56 which are situated in the same place where the complainants/respondent no.1 schedule property lay i.e., at Block No.22 of Madhuvana Layout, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Mysore. In support of their contention, complainants/respondent no.1 has produced 57 photographs of Block No.22, situated at Madhuvana Layout, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Mysuru. Further had produced the copy of common order dated 06.06.2013 passed by Forum below in CC/655/2010 to CC/658/2010 and copies of Title Deeds executed by the appellant/OP1 MUDA in pursuance to the order dated 06.06.2013 passed by Forum below in CC/655/2010 to CC/658/2010. Also produced copy of Sale Deed in respect of Site Nos.19, 54, 47, 50, 42, 52, 15, 38 and 27 situated at Block No.22 of Madhuvana Layout, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Mysuru. Thus it is clear from all these documents that appellant/OP1 MUDA had executed the title deeds in respect of other allottees in the same place where the schedule property of the complainants/respondent no.1 lays. Further to be noted herein that appellant/OP1 MUDA had not placed a single document either before the Forum below or before the Commission to show that plan Block No.22 situated at Srirampura 2nd Stage is earmarked as Park Area. 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/Appellant has issued an endorsement letter to the complainants/respondent no.1 by constituting the alleged schedule property as the CA sites. Complainants/respondent no.1 are in the possession of the alleged schedule property till today by constructing their dream home by paying taxes. They have spent their considerable life, time and earning towards the alleged schedule property. It is at this later stage that MUDA is alleging that the schedule properties are earmarked as Park area. The Forum below rightly professed the fact that if the schedule property is earmarked as CA sites, 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 complainants/respondent no.1. Further appellant/OP1 MUDA would not have accorded permission to construct residential buildings on the schedule property. Thus by looking into all these aspects it is clear that the schedule property is not earmarked as CA sites and if so the appellant/OP1 MUDA would not have 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.
The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to Forum below for needful.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady Member Judicial Member President *GGH* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER