(1.) We do not find any merit in this appeal and we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Ranga Reddy District Forum in C.D. No. 464/ 1997 dated 2.11.1998 directing the appellants, who were the opposite parties in that O.P. to return the sum of Rs. 44,000/ - together with interest at 15% per annum from 11.8.1997 till the date of payment and also compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - and costs of Rs. 1,000/ - to the respondent/ complainant.
(2.) The case of the complainant was that the 2nd appellant was the Proprietor of the 1st appellant M/s. Sri Sai Housing Enterprises and that they were doing business in land development and sale of plots and that they formed a lay out called Sri Laxmi Nagar -II by the side of Hyderabad -Nagar Junasagar Highway and started selling plots under monthly instalment scheme, the area of each plot being 200 sq. yards. The scheme floated by the appellants was that an intending member should pay an initial sum of Rs. 3,000/ - and thereafter Rs. 400/ - every month for a period of 27 months and also a further sum of Rs. 1,000/ - for every five months and the balance of the sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of plot in favour of the member who joined in the scheme. It is not in dispute that the complainant (respondent before us) joined as a member of the scheme for purchase of two plots bearing Nos. 188 and 189. He paid the requisite initial deposit and instalments in all, totalling for the two plots, Rs. 44,000/ -. That fact was not disputed by the appellants in their counter though they stated that further sums had to be paid for registration of plots. The problem arose because the land which was the subject matter of Sri Laxmi Nagar -II lay out was said to have been found to be Government land. It was assigned to landless poor and freedom fighters. According to the appellants, the original assignees sold the land assigned to them to other persons who also claimed to be landless poor persons and therefore they were not attracted by Section 9 of the A.P. Land Assignment Prohibition of Alienation Act. It was from these purchasers who claimed to be landless poor persons that the appellants purchased the land covered by the lay out. There were doubts about the validity of the purchase made by the appellants because admittedly the appellants were not landless poor persons. The interesting question that would arise is whether a landless poor person who purchases from the original assignees and whose purchase is protected under Section 9 of the A.P. Land Assignment Prohibition of Alienation Act could in turn sell the land purchased by him to non -landless poor persons and whether such non -landless poor persons can escape from the grasp of that Section 9. It is not necessary for us to enquire into those questions because the respondent/complainant had grave doubts about the title of the appellants and wanted return of the amounts paid by him. In the circumstances the District Forum directed the appellants to return the sum of Rs. 44,000/ - received by them together with interest at 15% per annum as already narrated earlier. We find that the title of the appellants in respect of the land in question is not without doubt and in the circumstances the complainant is entitled to claim the amount paid by him on the ground that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in not placing all the facts relating to their title to the land in question before the persons joining the scheme. We have to state that whenever such schemes are projected to entice members of the public to join the schemes the facts relating to the title of the property have to be laid bare, failing which it has to be held that unfair trade practices are being adopted by such persons. On the facts of the present case we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the District Forum. In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.