Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The opposite parties, in their Written Version, admitting the allotment of the house in favour of the complainant, as well the entire costs paid by him inter alia, would contend that the cost fixed, amount collected, are only tentative costs, that the owners of the lands acquired claiming additional compensation has not only filed LAOPs, but also filed original suit which were allowed, that pursuant to the same, final cost for the acquired land including land allotted to the complainant was fixed, adding improvement cost and on that basis a direction has been given to the complainant, through communications, reminding him also to pay a sum of Rs.34,436/- on or before 30.06.99, for which, there was no compliance and in this view accusing the opposite parties, as if they have committed deficiency in service, warranting direction and compensation are untenable, thereby, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
 

10. Ex.B2 is the working sheet produced by the opposite parties, to prove how the additional cost or enhanced price is fixed. Here also, we do not find any particulars, about the enhancement of compensation payable or paid to the land owner pursuant to the LAOPs or pursuant to original suits etc., What was the price fixed originally, how it was enhanced and under what circumstances, the opposite parties compelled or pressurized to reverse the tentative cost, and how they are entitled to claim the interest at the rate of 15% are not at all stated, in the working sheet. Based upon this working sheet, it seems Ex.A9 was issued on 21.06.99, as if the complainant is liable to pay Rs.34,436/-. In this notice, it is stated, because of the pendency of the land acquisition cases in the High Court, they are unable to finalize the price for the NH Scheme Land, Thanjavur. But due to the pressure given by the parties, pressing for sale deed, Board has approved a final cost, based on the highest compensation demanded by the ex-land owner i.e. at Rs.31,900/- per ground, for which, also no documents is produced. Thus, it is seen, the final cost now fixed is not based upon the final decision rendered by any Court, and therefore, in our considered opinion, the fixation of final price under Ex.A9 or under the written submission appears to be arbitrary, not based upon any reason, and in this view, we conclude, insisting that payment, refusal to hand over the sale deed, having collected the original price fixed, certainly would amount to deficiency in service as held by the lower Forum, in which, we are unable to find any error, compelling us to interfere. Therefore, the documents now produced by way of additional typeset papers also failed to advance the case of the opposite parties. An old man, a retired government servant, having paid the amount more than two decades ago, is unable to get the sale deed as held by the lower Forum, because of the deficiency in service, for which, there should be a direction and the direction issued by the lower Forum, gets the approval of us also. Thus analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account that the opposite parties have failed to prove the justification, in demanding the additional cost, we conclude the original cost should prevail, which was paid and the result should be, there should be a direction to hand over the sale deed.