V R RAJU Vs. NARNE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful complainant preferred this appeal against the order of District Forum-I, Hyderabad. The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased plot No. 29 in an extent of 300 sq. yards in phase-1 at Central Park of Kondapur village, Serlingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District on 15. 3. 2000 at an agreed rate of Rs. 500 per sq. yard from the respondent. He paid the entire sale consideration besides Rs. 22,500 towards registration charges. While so on 14. 10. 2002 the respondent demanded him to pay Rs. 57,500 for obtaining clearance from Urban Land Ceiling Department, which according to him (the complainant) was illegal and beyond the terms of allotment letter. Since he was not given physical possession, he was not liable to pay the same. While alleging deficiency in service, on the part of the respondent, he filed a complaint to direct the opposite party to register the plot besides compensation and costs.

(2.) THE opposite party resisted the complaint. However it admitted that it had sold the said plot to him for Rs. 1,25,000 out of total cost of Rs. 1,50,000. It gave concession of Rs. 25,000 to him, since he was its employee. It has also admitted the deposit of Rs. 25,000 towards registration charges. It alleged that it has purchased the land from original owner under an agreement of sale. After obtaining provisional sanction of the lay out from HUDA, it has developed the land into residential plots and allotted one plot to the complainant. Later, some land in which, the complainant's plot is also situated was declared as excess land by the ULC authorities against the original owner. It was a subsequent development. It was not in its knowledge. It could not convey right, title and interest in the plot to the complainant. It has sought regularization of excess land by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 455 Rev. (U. C. I.) Department dated 29. 7. 2002 and directed the complainant to pay Rs. 57,000 to meet the expenses for regularization. This amount is not the actual cost of the developed plot as on today. Similar allottees have availed the benefit of the said G. O. Since it was not a their fault and the offer made by it was not accepted by him, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) THE complainant filed affidavit evidence besides Exs. A1 to A8 while the opposite parties filed Exs. B1 to B7 the correspondence made between them.