NARNE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SRIKANTH VEDANTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful opposite party as against the orders dated 9.1.2009 in CC 606/2008 on the file of the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under:

(2.) THE case of the complainant in brief is that he joined as a member with the OP for purchasing a plot in central Park II, Kondapur, Hyderabad and paid initial amount of Rs. 25,200 on 27.10.1995. The balance amount of Rs.1,50,000 was payable in monthly instalmnts till June, 2000. Accordingly he paid all the instalments towards the cost of the plot and development charges by 1.10.2000, but the OP failed to register the plot in favour of the complainant in spite of repeated requests/representations made by him. The complainant received a letter dated 12.2.2004 from OP wherein it was confirmed receipt of entire payment. Further informing the complainant that the development work was completed and HUDA approval was also obtained and that registration would be taken up shortly another letter dated 6.5.2004 was received by the complainant from the OP wherein it was requested to remit Rs. 45,000 towards registration charges and Rs. 15,000 towards additional development charges. The complainant sought for clarifications for additional payment and remitted Rs. 18,000 towards registration charges and also submitted all relevant documents. Even after receipt of the said amount and documents for two years, OP failed to register the plot and on 17.1.2006 a demand notice for Rs. 70,000 towards additional plot costs for five square yards was sent to the complainant and a further demand of Rs. 58,250 towards registration charges and Rs. 15,250 towards development charges were also made. Believing that OP has obtained all final approval he paid Rs. 1,43,500 to the OP on 17.1.2008 and submitted required documents for registration. The complainant paid additional amount of Rs.76,250 towards registration and Rs. 31,500 towards development on2.12.2006 and obtained no due statement dated 30.12.2006. The OP failed to obtain HUDA approval of the lay out and therefore members of the lay out were forced to incur further expenses in getting regularized their purchased plots under the regularization scheme. In spite of all the said additional payments the OP failed to register the plot in favour of the complainant, again OP demanded a further sum of Rs. 1,93,000 which the complainant refused to pay and he communicated the same vide his letters dated 18.10.2007,12.4.2007, and 14.6.2008. Ultimately a legal notice was also sent to OP on 10.7.2008 but there was no response from it. All the lapses aforesaid on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint for a direction to OP 2 to hand over original registered document No. 1331/2007 pertaining to plot No. 222, Central Park II, Kondapur and ancillary reliefs described in the complaint.

(3.) OP filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and disputing the claim and the brief facts of the counter are as under: The complainanthad applied for allotment of a plot in the residential project central park in S. No. 218/5, Kondapur village, in Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District on 18.10.1995 and plot No. 222 was allotted to him and that the complainant paid Rs. 25,000 along with application and a sum of Rs. 21,000 towards initial amount after such an allotment and the balance amount of Rs. 1,04,000 was to be paid by him in 52 instalments @ Rs.2,000 per month commencing from December, 1999 till March, 2000. Plots were allotted by prior conditions that on condition that plots would be registered after final sanction of lay out by HUDA and that due to re -alignment of the lay out as per HUDA guidelines, the complainants plot gained an area of five square yards and thus Rs. 14,000 was demanded on 17.1.2006 towards the additional area. Since the cost of the development charges increased considerably over the period of time of allotment, the OP demanded further amount of Rs. 15,250 towards additional development charges. After issuance of reminder dated 6.6.2006 the complainant finally paid the amount in the month of December, 2006 and then OP executed an agreement of sale on 2.12.2006 in favour of the complainant for 305 sq. yards of land in plot No. 222 of the said venture. OP faced several hurdles in obtaining the final sanction of lay out from the ULC authorities. Originally ULC Act of 1976 was not applicable to the lay out but in the year 1980 A. P. State Government issued a G.O. including the villages of Kondapur and Madinaguda in the urban Agglomeration making ULC applicable to the said lands. In 1989 vide G. O. 733 the Govt.relaxed the urban land holding in the peripheral area to 8 acres of extent. The land in the lay out was held by 12 persons and thus provisions of ULC Act were not attracted and they were not required to submit any declaration seeking exemptions. OP had to pay hefty amount to get the lands regularized and therefore requested the complainant and others to deposit Rs.1,52,000 per plot towards ULC charges and Rs.15,000 towards maintenance charges and in the mean while neighbourer of the central park residential development filed a land grabbing case against the OP and it is still pending. While the matter thus stood, a special officer and competent authority under ULC passed orders dated 30.7.2007 vide proceedings No. H2/151/94 to 153/94 directing the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to resume the lands to the Government declaring the lands in Kondapur and Madinaguda villages are vested with the Government. The subject matter of this case forms part of those lands. Against the orders of the special officer, OP and others filed appeals before Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. in batch of appeal cases Nos. Hyd/82/2007 etc. and CCLR passed orders on 24.3.2008 setting aside the orders of the said Special Officer dated 30.7.2007 and remanded the matter to the Special Officer for fresh computation of the matter and orders and in view of the said facts title of the ands was in dispute with the Government and therefore OP could not execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and that in conducting the said cases OP appointed lawyers and met incidental charges of Rs. 1,52,000 and other incidental charges of Rs. 30,000 with prime motive to clear the land from clear hurdles. Until ULC issues clearance the HUDA will not grant final lay out. The representative of the allottees also got impleaded in the ULC during the pendency of matter before CCLA and the complainant has time and again requested the OP to register the plot under the prevailing situations and to alleviate the eagerness of the complainant the OP executed sale deed vide document No. 1331/2007 in favour of the complainant in respect of the said plot and the complainant was in the knowledge of all the said circumstances under which OP executed the sale deed and that in such circumstances there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.