GURURAJ H NAIK Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in this case had been allotted a Site bearing No.38 measuring 30' x 40' situated in Kamakshi Layout by the Respondent on 11.11.1987 for Rs.17,450/-. The complainant got the Lease-cum-Sale agreement executed at his cost by spending Rs.2,410/- towards Stamp duty and Registration fees. He was also issued Possession Certificate on 8.9.1988. It was found that the said site was under litigation and it was the subject matter of Writ Petition Nos.6193/1987 and 6624/1987 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka. As his request for allotment of alternate site was not complied with, the complainant has approached this Commission with this complaint alleging deficiency of services on the part of the BDA. Although detailed written statement was filed by the Respondent, the Respondent has allotted alternate Site No.5 situated in Ambedkar Layout having the same measurement and at the same rate at which the earlier site had been allotted to him. In view of that, the other contentions taken by the Respondent in its written statement are not pressed before us. The complainant states that he has received the allotment order and he has visited the Site and found it to his satisfaction.

(2.) Hence, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any amount by way of compensation. The complainant has spent Rs.2,410/- towards Stamp duty and registration fees as is clear from the copy of the Lease-cum- Sale Agreement produced by him. The Respondent could have ascertained before allotting site to the complainant whether the said site was free from litigation and whether it could transfer clear title to the complainant. As that has not been done and as the complainant has spend the said amount towards the registration of Lease-cum-Sale Deed, we think it proper to award the said amount to him from the Respondent.

(3.) The complainant urged that he is entitled to interest on Rs.17,450/- paid by him to the BDA as the said amount has been utilised by the BDA till it allotted the alternate site to him. The Respondent has allotted a new site at the old rate although the site has been allotted to him now. Under the circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any interest on the said sum.