G RAJITHA Vs. DEVI CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This compliant has been filed by the owner of two adjoining plots of land at a village in Ranga Reddy District of Andhra Pradesh. The complainant has averred that she (Smt. G. Rajitha, owner of two adjoining plots measuring 516 sq.yds in all) and another lady (Smt. M. Sunita, owner of two other adjoining plots measuring 610 sq.yds, in the same village) were approached by opposite party (OP) OP no. 1, a builder/ developer with the proposition that the latter would construct permissible number of flats on these parcels of land, each of which would then be sold at Rs.28-30 lakh. The complainant and OP no.2 (Smt. Sunita) accordingly offered their respective plots of land to OP no. 1, who undertook to construct a residential complex thereon (616 sq.yds).

(2.) The complainant has further averred that accordingly she and OP no. 2 entered into a Development Agreement with OP no. 1 with a view to "earn her livelihood by means of self-employment". According to this Development Agreement dated 19.11.2004, OP no. 1 would retain 15 out of the 25 flats to be constructed and hand over 10 flats to the complainant and OP no. 2, of which 8 flats would go to the share of the complainant. Under clause 11 of the Development Agreement, the parties agreed that OP no.1 shall complete the construction of the proposed residential complex within 21 months of taking over possession of the land/ plot from the complainant and OP no. 2. The agreement also provided for penalty of Rs.20,000/- per month per flat in case OP no. 1 failed to complete the construction of the residential complex within the stipulated period.

(3.) The allegation of the complainant is that though she as well as OP no. 2 handed over the possession of their plots of land to OP no. 1 on 19.11.2004 in accordance with the Development Agreement, the actual construction/ completion of the flat was not only delayed but the quality of construction was also poor. It is further alleged that the complainant as well as OP no. 2 were coerced by OP no. 1 to sell their respective shares of flats (10 in all) at Rs.12 lakh per flat to one K. Krishnamohan, allegedly an associate/ sleeping partner of OP no. 1. This price of Rs.12 lakh per flat was, according to the complainant, much below the initially assured rate of Rs.28 30 lakh per flat, because of the poor quality construction of the flats of their semi-finished status. The agreement of sale was thus executed, under duress, by the complainant and OP no. 2 with OP no.1. Still, OP no. 1 failed/ ignored to pay even the lower agreed amount. Finally, physical possession of the 10 flats falling in the shares of the complainant and OP no. 2 was handed over by OP no. 1 in semi-finished condition on 02.03.2007.