State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Prashant Mukund Patil vs Konkan Housing And Area Development ... on 18 February, 2014
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Consumer
Complaint No.CC/12/328
Shri Prashant Mukund Patil
5, Teresa Apartment
Jivadani
Road, Virar (East)
Taluka Vasai, Dist.Thane
Pin Code 401 303
...........Complainant
Versus
Chief Officer
Konkan Housing and Area Development Board, Griha
Nirman Bhavan
Kalanagar, Bandra (East)
Mumbai 400 051
...........Opponent
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR.
JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT
HON'ABLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Complainant in person.
Mr.Manoj Mhatre-Advocate for the opponent
ORDER
Per Honble Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member Mr.Prashant Mukund Patil has filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service (herein after referred as complainant) against the Chief Officer, Konkan Housing and Area Development Board (herein after referred to as opponent). The complaint was registered as consumer complaint no.CC/12/328. Facts leading to this complaint can be summarized as under:-
2. The complainant had applied for a plot in response to an advertisement by the opponent in newspaper dated 24/10/1983 to tab the interest of common man for Housing project at Virar. The complainant had applied for the same. Total 1285 persons responded to the advertisement. Out of 1285 applicants, opponent had informed to only 702 applicants in the year 1987 to deposit 10% of the cost of the plot. Accordingly, the complainant paid deposit of `500/-.
The complainant paid 25% of the cost i.e.`26,125/- of a plot no.484 allotted to the complainant. The opponent had revised the cost of plot to `1,21,875/- and informed the complainant by its letter dated 05/10/2005. Accordingly, the complainant paid the revised cost. Initially, the opponent had confirmed the allotment of 90 sq.meters area of the plot. However, the opponent had allotted the plot admeasuring 75 sq.meters. On enquiry, it was informed that the area was reduced because of the shortage of plots. When the opponent was short of plots, they should not have given the fresh advertisement in the year 2004-05. Because of the second advertisement, the plots already allotted were affected.
3. On 13/03/2006, the agreement was entered between the complainant and opponent leasing out the plot for the period of 30 years. The opponent had informed to the plot holders that they are supposed to pay the local taxes of their respective plots with effect from the date of NOC issued by the Local authority vide their letter dated 08/02/2007. However, the local authority had cancelled the NOC by its letter dated 29/07/1998. However, the taxes are recovered from the complainant. This is against the principle of natural justice and, hence, the complainant is legally eligible to recover the taxes from the opponent. Since last 25 years the opponent has miserably failed to provide the infrastructure in the layout.
4. Further, the complainant contended that he received the possession of a plot no.484 on 27/06/2006 vide letter from the opponent dated 01/08/2005. Complainant had written to the CIDCO, which is a planning authority for the area to approve the plan submitted by the complainant. In response to the letter of the complainant, the CIDCO had informed the complainant vide letter dated 09/10/2007 that Virar Municipal Council had withdrawn the certificate for providing the water vide their letter dated 29/07/1998. Though the NOC was cancelled by the Local Urban Authority on 29/07/1998, the opponent was not aware about this fact. During the period the Local Urban authority had given NOC for water to private developers. However, they have refused for water permission to the complainant. Hence, the complainant had approached to Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commission had directed the Corporation i.e. Urban Local authority to consider the request of the complainant. In the final hearing from the Human Rights Commission, the Chief Officer of the opponent had informed the Human Rights Commission that they are sending a revised layout affected due to reservation on 39 plots including the plot allotted to the complainant for approval to the Local Municipal Corporation. The Honble Human Rights Commission had given its decision for plot no.484 which was either not available or was reserved for the garden purpose. It is further contended by the complainant that he had applied for NOC to the opponent on 17/09/2011. In response to his application, the opponent had given the complainant an offer letter dated 23/02/2012 after charging scrutiny fee of `6000/-. In response to an application under Right to Information Act filed by the complainant on 04/06/2012, the opponent intimated that plot no.484 allotted to the complainant is affected due to reservation for garden and the possession was given as per the instructions of the High Court. The reservation was put on the plot allotted to the complainant without calling objections or informing to the complainant. The project is going on since last 25 years and the complainant has not been allotted the plot. Alleging this as deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, the complainant has filed consumer complaint with following prayers:-
1. Konkan Board should construct my house within six month from the date of final order passed by this Honble Commission, by bearing total expenditure with all facilities and amenities.
2. Reservation put on my plot (484) should be cancelled and my plot should be handed over to me free from encroachment and other legal litigation.
3. If reservation put on my plot (484) is in order in point of view of legal, then the charges for stamp duty and registration of the new plot which will be given to me should be bear by Konkan Board.
4. Lease should be cancelled for my plot(484) and new ownership agreement should be signed.
5. Towards compensation Konkan Board should pay `50,000,00/- to me.
6. Even though there is no mistake on my part, cost of my plot (484) was increased from `22,500/-
to `1,21,875/-.
By deducting original cost, difference of `99,375/- should be refunded to me by Konkan Board.
7. Though NOC was cancelled on 29/07/1998 taxes have been collected from me, sometimes with interest. Hence amount of `17,313/-, collected towards taxes, should be refunded to me with interest by Konkan Board.
5. The complaint was admitted on 19/12/2012 and notice after admission was issued to the opponent. The opponent has filed their written version and contested the complaint contending therein that the complaint is totally time barred. The complainant was handed over the possession of the plot in the year 2005-06.
Since the possession is handed over in the year 2005-06, the cause of action arose in the year 2005-06.
In the complaint, the complainant had not specifically contended when the cause of action arose. The opponent further contended that in response to an advertisement for demand assessed for open developed plot at Virar Bolinj dated 24/10/1983, 702 applications were received. There were 377 plots for allotment.
However, the offer for payment of 10% of the amount was given to 702 applicants and all the applicants paid 10% of the amount. As per advertisement, only plots were to be allotted and the opponent was not to construct the houses and not to provide any service regarding the construction on the said plot. For that area CIDCO was a planning authority and the planning authority has put a reservation, such as, play ground, garden, bus depot, market, primary school, etc. and due to said reservation most of the plots in the said layout were affected. Again the planning authority had informed to the opponent regarding the proposal of realigning of the road in the opponents layout at Virar Bolinj and because of the realignment of 30 meter D.P.road, the layout was largely affected. The affected plots were relocated and proposed in the revised layout and, accordingly, the layout was got approved from the CIDCO by letter dated 14/01/2010.
6. It is further contended that out of 530 individual plots in the layout 39 plots were affected due to reservation of garden, bus depot and in a revised layout 39 affected plots were relocated. The opponent after taking actual site measurement, tried to accommodate 39 plus 3 plots as per the site conditions and the revised layout was sent to Vasai Virar Mahapalika vide letter no.EE/T/KB/730/2012 dated 31/12/2012 for approval. It is further contended that the complainant was originally allotted plot no.484, which was affected by reservation.
So instead of that plot, complainant was allotted another plot in the same scheme in the year 2005 and since it is the condition that upon allotment of plot, the outgoings pertaining to the same i.e. taxes shall be borne and paid by the allottee and, hence, the taxes have been levied on the complainant by the concerned authority and, hence, there is no question of returning the same. It is contended by the opponent that the plot allotted to the complainant is relocated in the revised layout and after approval of the revised layout, the procedure of allotting plot as well as giving NOC to the complainant will be carried out. Therefore, the opponent contended that the complainant has failed to make out any case for seeking any relief and there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint may please be dismissed.
7. Along with the complaint, complainant has filed list of documents containing 42 papers in support of his contention. Similarly, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with list of documents and filed a pursis for closing evidence. On behalf of opponent, one Mr.Ravikant Bhagoji Bawdane, authorized officer of the opponent filed the evidence. Both the parties closed their evidence.
8. Both the parties were directed to file brief notes of arguments under regulation 13(2) of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9. We heard the complainant in person and Mr.Manoj Mhatre for the opponent.
10. Admittedly, in response to an advertisement floated by the opponent-Housing Authority, the complainant has applied for the allotment of the plot and the complainant was allotted plot no.484 for consideration of `22,500/-.
The price of the plot was revised from time to time and the complainant had paid price of `1,21,875/-
for the said plot. It is also on record that CIDCO was a planning authority for the area and CIDCO authority had put certain reservations in the layout.
It is the contention of the complainant that he had applied for 90 sq.meters plot. However, he was allotted plot admeasuring only 75 sq.meters. It is the contention of the complainant that the opponent had given NOC for water supply to the said plot on 06/10/1997. However, said NOC was cancelled by the Corporation on 29/07/1998 and the opponent has not informed the same to the complainant. The other grievance of the complainant is that the opponent local authority is collecting taxes from the said plot. Because of the reservations made by the Development authority, nearly 39 plots have been affected and, hence, the opponent Housing authority had prepared the revised layout and submitted it to the Local Urban authority for the sanction.
11. On 05/02/2014, the opponent has filed a status report of the layout. The Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation has approved the layout on 13/12/2013 and as per the revised layout, in lieu of plot no.484 (old), a new plot no.153 having area 89.25 sq.meters was allotted. The complainant had inspected the site on 10/01/2014 and is satisfied with the position of the re-allocated plot. Presently, there is only 6 meter wide road to the left side of the complainants plot and front side 30 meter wide D.P. road is to be constructed. Opponent had given undertaking that the opponent is developing the infrastructure in the whole layout in the area approximately 47 hectres and the details of the infrastructure are as under:-
i) Roads and Storm water drains
ii) Water supply network
iii) Sewerage Network
iv) Widening of Existing Nalla
v) Approval to sewerage treatment plant of having capacity 3.0 MLD and 0.8 MLD is to be constructed after duly approval from the local authority.
12. It is a very interesting case. An advertisement was published in the year 1983 and, initially, plot no.484 was allotted and the possession of the said plot was actually handed over on 27/06/2006. Still the complainant is not able to construct his own dream house. The complainant is paying the local taxes to the local authority. It is on record that the NOC for water permission was granted to the complainant on 06/10/1997 and the same was subsequently cancelled by the local authority on 29/07/1998. However, in a case filed by the complainant before the Human Rights Commission, the opponent Housing authority has no knowledge of the fact. The poor complainant is going from pillar to post to construct his dream house. However, he is not in a position to construct the house. No doubt the revised layout is sanctioned and the complainant has been allotted a new plot bearing no.153 admeasuring 89.25 sq.meters. Still there is no proper infrastructure and the opponent has promised that they will complete the entire infrastructure within a period of two years. In the complaint, the complainant has prayed that the lease of 30 years of the plot be cancelled and the new plot be given on ownership, difference of the amount of the costs of the plot which he has paid and original price difference of `99,375/- be paid to him back, the taxes collected amounting to `17,313/- be returned back and compensation of `50 lakhs. In the last 25 years, the price of the land has increased to 5 to 10 folds and the complainant will have advantage of the appreciated price.
Hence the prayer of complainant to allot a plot on ownership basis, refunding the difference in price initially charged and finally recovered and refunding the local charges does not hold good.
13. Prima facie, the complainant could not get possession of the plot allotted to him because of the reservation put on the said layout by the planning authority i.e. CIDCO. The opponent has not kept the complainant informed from time to time. Complainant has to run from pillar to post for getting possession of the plot and the complainant is entitled for compensation for keeping him in dark. In our opinion, compensation of `1,00,000/- for considerable delay in officially allotting plot to the complainant and, thereby, causing mental agony will meet the ends of justice with a costs of `30,000/- for the litigation. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER Complaint is partly allowed.
Opponents are directed to hand over possession of plot no.153 admeasuring 89.25 sq. meters within one month of the date of order. The opponents are further directed to develop the infrastructure as promised by them in their statement dated 05/02/2014 within a period of two years.
The Opponent shall pay compensation of `1,00,000/- and costs of `30,000/-
within a period of 45 days to the complainant, failing which, the amount will carry an interest of 9% per annum till its realization.
Pronounced on 18th February, 2014.
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.