K SARALAMMA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Site No.3, Sarakki Industrial Lay-out, Bannerghatta Road, III Stage, J. P. Naga;, Bangalore City was allotted to K. Munibasaiah, who was the husband of Complainant No.1 and father of Complainant Nos.2 and 5, on 22/7/1977. The allottee paid the full amount and obtained the necessary documents. Site No.3 A was allotted to one Sri V. L. Seenappa on 11/11/1975 by the respondent. He too paid the amount and obtained the necessary documents on 17/5/1988. Mr. V. L. Seenappa started digging pits for foundation in the site allotted to K. Munibasaiah. Then the Complainant No.3 filed an Original Suit No.2251/1988 in the Court of the 13th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore for a permanent injunction restraining the said V. L. Seenappa from putting up any construction in that site. The said suit was decided on 28/2/1989 holding that Site Nos.3 and 3a were one and the same and upholding the claim of V. L. Seenappa who was the earlier allottee. That fact is evident from the certified copy of the Judgment produced by the complainants. Hence, the complainants have filed this complaint for a direction to the BDA to allot an alternate site to the complainants and to pay compensation for the loss caused to them.

(2.) The complaint is resisted by the respondent mainly on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

(3.) No doubt, the site was allotted to complainants in 1977 and the possession was taken in 1979. But the complainants have stated that they came to know about the deficiency only in 1988, when V. L. Seenappa started digging on their site. That fact appears to be true in view of the fact that Complainant No.3 filed O. S. No.2251/1988 for an injunction against V. L. Seenappa as per the contents of the judgment which is produced. It is clear that Site Nos.3 and 3a were one and the same. So there was no Site No.3 to be allotted to the husband of Complainant No.1 and father of Complainant Nos.2 to 5. As the complainants have come to know about the deficiency only in 1988, we hold that their complaint is in time. The allotment of a non-existent site to the complainants by the respondent is certainly a deficiency in service. Hence the complainants are entitled to an alternate site. But as we direct the respondent to allot an alternate site at the same old rate at which Site No.3 were allotted, we hold that the complainants are not entitled to any compensation. The complainants' Advocate states that complainant Nos.2 to 5 have no objection if the site is allotted to the Complainant No.1.