RAGHAVA ESTATES LTD Vs. VISHNUPURAM COLONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the Builder, Raghava Estates Ltd., OP1. The petitioner floated a project by the name of Vishnupuram Colony in which the Members of the complainant/Respondent No. 1, Association acquired individual houses. The Builder was to provide the said colony with all modern facilities like underground drainage, underground electricity, BT roads, temple, shopping complex, canals to drain rain water on both the sides of BT road and developed park. The Builder also collected Rs.200/- per sq.yd from each Member of the Association towards development of the said facilities in all, collected a sum of Rs.55,98,000/-.

(2.) THE complainant , Association gave a detailed notice as there were lot of defects in the above said facilities. THE BT roads laid in the colony are of 1/2 (half) inch thickness which show that the roads are for namesake and of sub-standard. THE petitioner was bound to lay 60 ft. road between the First and Second phases but it neither formed 60 ft. road nor left sufficient margins to manifest the 60 ft. road. As a matter of fact, it formed 31 ft. road but left 18 ft. BT road and this is not even in semblance for the road for the remaining 29 ft. THE outline for underground drainage was not yet formed and the Builder did not follow the mandatory Rules and Regulations of the VGTM Urban Development Authority/Respondent No.2. THE complainant, therefore, got issued a recall notice to the VGTM Urban Development Authority, to take necessary action against the Builder. THE Builder did not maintain the level for proper flow of drainage, which resulted in blockage in chambers due to reverse flow, getting stagnated and overflowing into the vacant flats of the colony. It is also alleged that the Builder formed BT roads in March, 2004 and the drainage work continued till March, 2004, half-finished. THE request made by the Complainant to rectify the defects did not ring the bell.

(3.) ARGUMENTS raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, lack conviction. As a matter of fact, the District Forum had appointed an Executive Engineer, for inspection of the above said colony. His report is of infinite value. He gave the following report:-