KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD Vs. D. SHANTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are a set of 21 revision petitions filed by the Karnataka Housing Board (referred to as KHB in this order), arising from 21 complaints. The matter in all these complaints related to a residential lay-out taken up by the petitioner/KHB in Shimoga District. In response to a notification published in the local newspapers on 5.5.2004 and 5.6.2004, all Complainants had registered for allotment of house sites in the proposed lay out. The KHB received not only the registration fee of Rs.1050/- but also initial deposit of Rs.15,000/- from every one of them in 2005. Later, it wrote to them seeking their consent for acceptance of allotment price at Rs.290 per sq. ft. The Complainants represented for reduction, but later accepted the rate of Rs.290/- per sq. ft. on 15.11.2007. No further communication was received by the Complainants from the KHB and therefore, they issued legal notice in January, 2011, which was not replied. It was in this background that all the consumer complaints came to be filed in 2011.

(2.) District Forum, Shimoga in a detailed order rejected the contention of the KHB that the complaints are barred by limitation. It also held that the KHB had no valid reason for not allotting the sites after having received not only the registration amount, but also initial deposits from the Complainants. It therefore, allowed the complaints and directed the OP/KHB to allot sites in the lay out formed on the land in question by draw of lots if necessary and pay them Rs.2000/- each towards cost. Significantly, the District Forum also permitted the KHB to re-fix the price of the house sites, holding that determination of price was the prerogative of KHB.

(3.) This order has been upheld by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Appeals filed by the KHB, against it, have been dismissed. The Karnataka Housing Board is thus, before this Commission in 21 revision petitions against concurrent orders of the fora below. We have heard Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Matkala Advocate, for the revision petitioner and Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate on behalf of the respondents. The records as submitted have been perused carefully by us.