LAWS(NCD)-2008-5-28

CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SAUBHAGYA CHANDRA BISWAL

Decided On May 12, 2008
CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
SAUBHAGYA CHANDRA BISWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party No. 3 in C. D. Case No. 141 of 2006 has filed this appeal against the complainant/respondent No. 1 and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2/proforma respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to set aside the orders dated 30. 5. 2007 of the District Forum, Cuttack in the C. D. case directing the opposite parties to allot a plot of land in Sector-8, Bidanasi Project Area or anywhere with all facilities to the complainant and complainant is to pay the escalation cost, etc. and opposite parties further to pay compensation and cost of litigation Rs. 10,000 and 20,000 respectively to the complainant within 45 days from the date of order.

(2.) FACTS in brief is that on 26. 5. 2006, complainant filed the aforesaid C. D. case praying to direct opposite parties to deliver him possession of residential plot vide Registerd No. 34-B 276-38 in Markatnagar, Sector-8, Bidanasi Project Area or in the same category plot in the said sector and interest @18% per annum over his deposited amount of Rs. 1,69,080 from 14. 9. 2000 till realization of interest and compensation Rs. 15,00,000 and cost of litigation Rs. 50,000. Complainant had applied for allotment of 'b' category plot at Sector 9, Bidanasi Project Area as per Brochure No. 1/91 and made initial deposit of Rs. 35,000. There was no allotment of plot this time in his favour. So, vide letter dated 20. 3. 1995 (Annexure-2) the Secretary of Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter be referred to as the 'c. D. A. ') (appellant) advised complainant to take back the initial deposit or allow them to retain the initial deposit which is interest free, so that they would consider for allotment of a plot in his favour on priority basis in the next allotment. Complainant preferred to wait till the next allotment. Then vide letter No. 15518 dated 4. 5. 1995 (Annexure-3), appellant intimated him in respect to provisional allotment of 'b' category plot in Sector 8, Bidanasi Project Area requesting to deposit the price of the plot Rs. 1,69,080 in 16 quarterly instalments, each instalment being Rs. 8,380. Complainant deposited dues on instalment till last part of August, 2000 Rs. 1,69,080 in view of letter (Annexure-3 ). But, vide letter No. 17742 dated 22. 10. 1999 (Annexure-4) the appellant intimated that out of the provisional cost of Rs. 1,69,080, he has already deposited Rs. 60,140 in view of letter (Annexure-3) and the escalated cost of 'b' category plot having been fixed at Rs. 2,54,160, he requested him to deposit the differential amount viz. Rs. 1,74,020 (Rs. 2,54,160 - Rs. 60,140) as per the provision in paragraph 2. 2 of brochure 1/91 and interest of Rs. 48,034 on defaulted amount there being default of payment of instalment dues, in total Rs. 2,42,054. Vide said letter, intimation was given that additional amount would be charged over and above escalated cost of plot towards its situational advantage and for additional land which would be intimated before final allotment of plot.

(3.) THE further case of the complainant in brief is that though he has already deposited the provisional cost of the land, Rs. 1,69,080 in view of Annexure-3, yet without taking note of it, with ill intention to deprive him from the selected land, opposite party No. 3 illegally and arbitrarily vide letter dated 16. 4. 2002 (Annexure-6) cancelled the allotted plot wrongly stating therein that he has only deposited Rs. 35,000 towards initial deposit and Rs. 50,280 towards instalment in total Rs. 85,280. In view of this as well as opposite parties having not delivered him possession of the plot in spite of his repeated representations as per Annexure-7 series dated 24. 7. 2002 and 29. 8. 2002, he suffered from mental agony. He is a Class-I Industrialist and is the owner of the B. K. Marine Enterprises situated at Bisakshpatnam. He has sustained loss of business Rs. 2,00,000 from financial year 1995 till end of February, 2006. Therefore, he filed the C. D. case.