C L JAGANNATH Vs. CHAIRMAN B D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant had been allotted a site meas- uring 30'x40' in Kamakshi Layout in 1987. He got the Lease-cum-Sale agreement registered and got the Possession Certificate in July 1988. Subsequently, it was found that the said site was involved in litigation and the complainant could not take up the construction of his house on that site. Hence he has filed his complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the BDA. The BDA immediately after service of notice has considered the case of the complainant and was pleased to allot an alternate site to him at the same rate in HSR Layout.

(2.) Although the claim of the complainant for alternate site was met by the BDA, the complainant insists that he must be awarded costs of registration, the amount of land tax paid by him and also damages, in all amounting to Rs.36,119.95.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the BDA urged that the complainant is not entitled to get any of the amounts claimed by him. So the only point that has to be considered in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to any of the amounts claimed by him. It is not disputed that the complainant spent Rs.2,446/- for getting the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement registered and that he has also paid Land Tax of Rs.73.95. The complainant has been made to incur that expenditure on a site for which the BDA could not transfer clear title to him. Hence we think it proper to direct the BDA to pay the amount of Rs.2,519.95 to the complainant. The complainant has also claimed Rs.5,000/- towards incidental charges for visiting BDA Office, for getting the papers typed, etc. Apart from the fact that the amount is excessive, the complainant has not placed any material to show that he has spent that amount. As the new site has been allotted to him at the old rate, he cannot claim any interest on the cost of the old site. By investing the amount intended to be spent on the construction of the house in a Bank, he would have earned interest and that will meet the escalation in construction costs. The BDA has promptly allotted the alternate site to the complainant and so we think the complainant is not entitled to any costs. The other points taken by the BDA in the written statement have not been urged in this case in view of the grant of an alternate site to the complainant.