State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Executive Engineer (Housing) ... vs Sri A.Mohan Reddy S/O.Venkata Subba ... on 14 November, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.1013/2011 against C.C.No.19/2011 District Forum-II, Vijayawada Between 1. The Executive Engineer (Housing) A.P. Housing Board, V.H.R.Complex Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2. 2. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.G.Road, Hyderabad-500 001. ..Appellants/ Opp.parties And Sri A.Mohan Reddy S/o.Venkata Subba Reddy Hindu, aged 45 years, R/o.MIG-123/1, APHB Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.D.Ranganath Kumar For the Respondent : Party in person. FA.No.1014/2011 against C.C.No.50/2011 District Forum-II, Vijayawada Between 1. The Executive Engineer (Housing) A.P. Housing Board, V.H.R.Complex Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2. 2. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.G.Road, Hyderabad-500 001. ..Appellants/ Opp.parties And Veerapaneni Siva Rama Krishna S/o.late Sivarama Swamy, Hindu, 65 years, R/o.D.No.76-1-160/6, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.D.Ranganath Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.M.R.L.Narasimha Rao. FA.No.1015/2011 against C.C.No.94/2011 District Forum-II, Vijayawada Between 1. The Executive Engineer (Housing) A.P. Housing Board, V.H.R.Complex Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2. 2. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.G.Road, Hyderabad-500 001. ..Appellants/ Opp.parties And 1. Sri Kommuri Kasiviswanatham S/o.Venkata Subbaiah Aged 69 years, R/o. MIG 150/1, APHB Colony Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12. Respondent/ Complainant 2. Gottipati Ram Babu S/o,Mallikharjuna Rao 50 years, C.Colony, VTPS DE-37, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. Respondent/ (R2 shown above is not a necessary party) Opp.party 3 Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.D.Ranganath Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.M.R.L.Narasimha Rao-R1. FA.No.1059/2011 against C.C.No.121/2011 District Forum-II, Vijayawada Between 1. The Executive Engineer (Housing) A.P. Housing Board, V.H.R.Complex Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2. 2. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.G.Road, Hyderabad-500 001. ..Appellants/ Opp.parties And 1. Smt Kallakuri Lalitha W/o.Venkata Chalam, Hindu, 75 years, R/o. MIG 151/6, APHB Colony Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12. Respondent/ Complainant 2. Sri Ch.Bangarraju C/o.A.Mohan Reddy Hindu, 55 years, MIG 123/11, APHB Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12. Respondent/ (R2 shown above is not a necessary party) Opp.party 1 Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.D.Ranganath Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.M.R.L.Narasimha Rao-. QUORUM:SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the orders in C.C.Nos.19/2011, 50/1,94/11 and 121/11 on the file of District Forum-II, Vijayawada, the opposite parties preferred F.A.Nos.1013/2011, 1014/2011, 1015/2011 and 1059/2011. Since all these appeals deal with similar facts, they are being disposed of by a common order.
F.A.No.1013/2011:
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.19/2011 on the file of District Forum-II, Vijayawada, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant entered into an agreement in the year 1995 for purchase of flat MIG No.123/1 with one Barutula Suryanarayana who was the original allottee and paid the entire consideration to him as per the agreement. In pursuance of the agreement, the complainant submitted all the required documents to the opposite parties on 20-12-2007 with a request to transfer the said flats in his favour and subsequently the opposite parties issued a public notice by way of publication on 11-1-2008 for effecting transfer of the flat. The complainant also paid the charges by way of challan on 27-12-2004, but inspite of repeated requests, the opposite parties did not register the flat. Hence the complaint seeking direction for registration, compensation and costs.
First opposite party filed counter stating that one Baratula Suryanarayana was allotted flat No.1 at MIG Bhavanipuram and he paid 30% down payment of Rs.27,116/- and entered into an agreement with the opposite parties and took physical possession of the flat on 01-6-1988 and finally paid the last instalment of Rs.15,890/- dated 27-12-2004 and the final cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.73,000/-. Thereafter the original allottee sold the flat to one Sri A.Mohan Reddy, who is the complainant herein who submitted an application along with third party agreement on 21-12-2002 requesting for registration of the flat but the complainant did not pay the 4% transfer fee in his name and as per G.O.Ms.No.67 (Hg) dated 8-9-2001. Opposite party issued a paper notification in Eenadu but the complainant after the notification made unauthorized construction of a room, shed and compound wall in the appurtenant land which is a common area and is the undivided share of first floor and second floor allottees. As per the multi-storied flats construction system of A.P.Housing Act, open site appurtenant land provided in 215 block of phase I should be made available to the allottees and the Deputy Executive Engineer inspected the construction and requested the complainant to remove the unauthorized construction and then the flat would be registered in his name as per rules and submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
Opposite party No.2 filed memo adopting the counter of opposite party No.1 Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A4 and B1 to B6 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to register the flat by receiving an amount of Rs.32,678/- deposited by the complainant in favour of the opposite party i.e. Executive Engineer, APHB for transfer of his flat. Further opposite parties are at liberty to approach appropriate court for removal of unauthorised construction. Rest of the claims are rejected. Time for compliance one month. No costs.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased MIG flat No.123/1 from the original allottee Sri B.Suryanarayana and entered into agreement by paying the entire sale consideration on 27-10-2002 and submitted vide Ex.A1 the necessary documents to the Executive engineer for transfer and registration. Thereafter the opposite parties made a paper publication inviting objections from the general public, if any, for effecting transfer of the flat in the name of the complainant vide Ex.A2, paper publication. The complainant was directed to pay vide Ex.A4, the necessary charges for transfer of the flat. Thereafter inspite of repeated requests, the opposite parties did not register the flat.
It is the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the complainant herein made illegal and unauthorised constructions by encroaching upon the common area which is in violation of clause 6 of the agreement which prohibits the purchaser from making any alterations. The appurtenant land belongs to all flat owners and the rights of the allottees of the other flats is effected because of the said constructions. Ex.B4 is agreement for sale of multi-storeyed flats and the appellants are relying on clause 6 of this agreement which prohibits the allottee to make any alterations or deviations. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that a note was written to the Executive Engineer by the Assistant Estate Officer, which he filed as part of Ex.B4, together with the plan copy showing the compound wall and the shed. It is stated in this note i.e. plan copy that the shed is of AC sheet having an RCC roof.
The party in person that the compound wall was constructed for the sake of protection and the counsel for the complainants and representing the other allottees has contended that the construction was not a permanent construction and was only an temporary shed with asbestos roof which cannot be any ground for the appellants/opposite parties to stop registration of the flats. We find force in this contention. It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid the entire amount towards sale consideration and has also deposited an amount of Rs.32,678/- by way of D.D. before the District Forum in favour of the opposite party and the District Forum has only directed the opposite parties to receive this amount and register the flat in favour of the complainant herein and to approach proper court for any other unauthorized construction. The opposite parties did not establish by way of any documentary evidence that the construction is a permanent one except for the compound wall which the complainant has admitted to constructing for the purpose of protection. The party in person has also submitted that he made an application for permission to the opposite parties for construction of the compound wall. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted that they received the application but no permission was accorded. The complainant submitted that there was no reply from the opposite parties and we observe from the agreement that there is no bar for construction of compound wall and the said wall does not fall under any deviation or alteration to the plan of the house and therefore the opposite parties cannot stop the registration of the flat on this ground alone.
Hence we see no reasons to interfere with the well-considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.Nos.1014/2011, and 1059/2011 Since F.A.No.1014/2011 and F.A.No.1059/2011 also deal with similar facts, for the aforementioned reasons, these appeals are also dismissed and the order of the District Forum is confirmed. Time for compliance four weeks. No costs.F.A.No.1015/2011
In F.A.No.1015/2011 the District Forum has directed the opposite parties to register the flat after receiving the dues, if any, from the complainant. The quantum of dues has not been stated. The complainant also did not prefer any appeal.
The District Forum also observed that opposite parties 1 and 2 are at liberty to approach appropriate court to remove unauthorised constructions and dismissed the complaint against opposite party no.3. For the reasons mentioned in F.A.No.1013/2011, we confirm the order of the District Forum and this appeal also fails and is dismissed. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.14-11-2012