Date of Filing: 19.09.2007<br /> Date of Order: 31.12.2007<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2007<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1939 OF 2007<br /> Sri. K. S. S. Anand,<br /> R/at: D. No.1596, 1st Cross,<br /> Vidyanagar, Mandya City. …. COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1940 OF 2007<br /> H.C Divya,<br /> Rep. by G.P.A Holder<br /> B.K. Kempegowda, Grand Father,<br /> R/at: No.244, 12th Main, 5th Cross,<br /> Saraswathipuram, Mysore. …. COMPLAINANT<br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1941 OF 2007<br /> Sri. S. Sadananda,<br /> R/at. 7th Main, 9th Cross,<br /> Door No.36, Saraswathipuram,<br /> MYSORE – 23. …. COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1942 OF 2007<br /> Sri. B. K. Nagaraj,<br /> Rep. by G.P.A Holder<br /> & Natural Father,<br /> B.K. Kempegowda,<br /> R/at. Saraswathipuram, 12th Main,<br /> MYSORE. …. COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> -V/s-<br /> <br /> 1. Sri. C.P. Yogeswara, - Prop. & M.D -<br /> M/s. Mega City Bangalore Developers<br /> & Builder Pvt. Ltd., No.120, K,H. Road<br /> Double Road, Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Sri. C.P Gangadhareswara, - Executive Director -<br /> M/s. Mega City Developer<br /> & Builders Pvt. Ltd., No.120, K, H. Road<br /> Double Road, Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> 3. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor<br /> Enterprises Ltd., No.1, Midford House,<br /> Midford Gardens Office, M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> - Rep. by its Managing Director - …. OPPOSITE PARTIES<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> All these complaints seeking similar reliefs are directed against the same opposite parties, therefore they are disposed off by this common order.<br /> <br /> 2. Impressed by the advertisements issued on behalf of M/s. Mega City Developers by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 regarding the allotment and sale of residential sites in ‘VAJRAGIRI TOWNSHIP’ a layout proposed to be formed by the Company, the complainants being interested in purchasing the residential sites became members of the Company, applied for allotment of site, made payment towards the sital value and other expenses. The Company also executed Agreement to Sale in favour of the complainants, except the complainant in Case No.1940/07 allotted a particular site in favour of each complainant and also issued possession certificate. The details of the dimension of the site applied for by each complainant, the amount paid towards sital value and other expenses, the site allotted in favour of each complainant and the date of possession certificate are as under:-<br /> <br /> Sl.No. Case No. Dimension Of SiteApplied Amount Paid Site Allotted Date of Possession Certificate<br /> 1. 1939/2007 60` X 80` Rs.2,55,900/-(Site Value) Site No.18,‘E’ Block 25.10.1998<br /> 2. 1940/2007 30` X 40` Rs.63,300/-(Site Value) Site No.706, F-II Block 11.05.1999<br /> 3. 1941/2007 40` X 60` Rs.1,32,000/- Rs.3,200/- (Site Value) Site No.157, ‘E’ Block 14.11.1998<br /> Rs.35,288/- (Registration Charges) <br /> 4. 1942/2007 40` X 60` Rs.91,200/-(Site Value) Site No.158, ‘E’ Block 25.10.1998<br /> Rs.36,188/- (Registration Charges) <br /> <br /> 3. Subsequently, in spite of the assurance held by the Company and in spite of repeated requests and demands the Company represented by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 failed to execute sale deed in favour of each complainant in respect of the site allotted. Hence these complaints are filed praying for a direction to the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 to execute sale deed in respect of the site allotted in favour of each complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.17,08,000/- to each of them.<br /> <br /> 4. Besides opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 the Directors of M/s. Mega City Developers, the complainants have also impleaded opposite party No.3 Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited. But no relief is prayed as against opposite party No.3. After entering appearance opposite party No.3 filed a Memo praying to dismiss the complaint as against it as the complainants have not claimed any relief against opposite party No.3.<br /> <br /> 5. In the version the contention of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 the Directors of M/s. Mega City Developers is as under:-<br /> M/s. Mega City Developers is a Company registered under the Companies Act and it was established for the purpose of developing the lands for formation of the residential Layouts and to allot the sites to its members. In order to achieve that object the Company had entered into agreement with the land owners who also executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the Company, agreeing to sell the various extent of lands in various survey numbers of Seshagirihalli and Manchanayakanahalli and other villages. The Company applied for conversion of the agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes to form the layout. Since the area where the layout was proposed to be formed comes within the purview of Bangalore - Mysore Infrastructure Corridor area Planning Authority the Revenue Department sought no objection from BMICAPA by its letter dated: 18.07.2001. As per the letter dated: 13.08.2001 BMICAPA informed the Revenue Department that the land cannot be converted for non-agricultural purposes. When the project was taken up there were no legal hurdles to form the layout, but due to changed circumstances the Company is not in a position to complete the project and to execute sale deeds in favour of the members pursuant to the Agreement to Sell. The company had entered into agreement with M.P. Srirangashetty to purchase Survey No.31/1 of Hampapura village measuring 1 Acre, 18.5 Guntas. Sri. M.P. Srirangashetty had also executed a Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one of the directors of the company. The land was got converted for non-agricultural purposes and the sale deeds were also executed in favour of other members. Site No.18 in ‘E’ Block allotted in favour of the complainant in Case No.1939 of 2007 forms a part of Survey No.31/1. As per the intimation given by the Company some of the allottees came forward and got the sale deed executed in their favour, but the complainant in Case No. 1939/2007 did not come forward in time to get the sale deed executed in his favour. Now M.P. Srirangashetty has sold the same property in favour of Karnataka Housing Board and therefore the Company is contemplating to initiate legal proceedings against him. It is in these circumstances the Company could not execute sale deed in favour of the complainant in Case No. 1939 of 2007 for which the complainant has to blame himself. <br /> <br /> 6. Site No.706 in ‘F2’ Block allotted in favour of the complainant in Case No. 1940 of 2007 forms part of Survey No.28 measuring 1 Acre, situated at Hampapura village. The entire family of Ramaiah, S/o. late Huchappa had agreed to sell the said land in favour of the Company. After the agreement was drafted it was noticed that there was some dispute among the family members. The members of the family of one Ugrappa signed the agreement and received the amount with assurance to secure the signature of his children. The Company also came to know that a suit in O.S. No. 13/94 has been filed in respect of the said land and after the suit was decreed FDP No.33/97 is pending. Therefore since the land has not been transferred in its favour, the Company is not in a position to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in Case No 1940/2007.<br /> <br /> 7. So far as site No.157 and 158 in ‘E’ Block allotted in favour of the complainants in Case Nos. 1941 and 1942 of 2007 are concerned the Company had entered into an agreement to purchase Survey No.29/4 measuring 35 Guntas, Survey Nos. 30/1, 30/3, 30/4, 30/5, 30/6 and 30/7 in all measuring 2 Acres, 22 Guntas. The landowners also executed General Power of Attorney dated: 19.09.2001 in favour of Sri. P. Mahadevaiah one of the Directors of the Company. The lands were got converted for non-agricultural purposes the layout plan was approved by the BMIACPA and sale deeds were executed in favour of many of the members, but the complainants in Case Nos. 1941 and 1942/2007 themselves did not come forward in time to get the sale deeds registered in their favour. In the mean while, the landowners have sold the above lands on 05.12.2006 in favour of Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society. <br /> <br /> 8. It is also stated that being unable to form the layout as proposed the Company has made arrangement to refund the amount paid by the members with bank rate of interest and the same is communicated to the members. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Company and therefore the complaints are liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 9. In support of the respective contentions, both the parties have filed affidavits and have produced documents. We have heard arguments on both sides.<br /> <br /> 10. At the time of the arguments the learned counsel for the complainant produced the copy of the order in Appeal No.839/2007 and other connected cases decided by the Honorable State Commission on 03.08.2007 and submitted that the complaints are prepared to obtain sale deeds from the opposite party subject to the risk involved in purchasing the same and therefore as per the order of the Honorable State Commission in the above case the opposite party may be directed to execute sale deed in favour of each complainant. <br /> <br /> 11. The points for consideration are:-<br /> (1) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> <br /> (2) Whether the complainants entitled to the relief prayed for in the respective complaint?<br /> <br /> <br /> 12. Our findings on the above points are:-<br /> POINT No.1:- In the Affirmative as against opposite<br /> party Nos. 1 & 2<br /> POINT No.2:- As per the final Order.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 13. POINT NOS. 1 & 2:-<br /> At the outset we may point out that opposite party No.3 Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited has been unnecessarily dragged in to litigation, because neither any allegation constituting deficiency in service is made against opposite party No.3 nor any relief is claimed as against opposite party No.3. The only allegation against opposite party No.3 is that, it had published in ‘Star of Mysore’ and ‘Prajavani’ newspaper dated: 28.03.2007 and 30.03.2007 that the suit property has been acquired for the purpose of formation of a township. Even the publication stated to have been published by opposite party No.3 is not placed on record. In these circumstances the complaint against opposite party No.3 are liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 14. In the version opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have not denied the assertions of each complainant with regard to the payment made towards the sital value and other expenses, allotment of site and issuance of possession certificate in favour of each complainant. From the possession certificate issued in favour of each complainant it is seen that, those certifies were issued way back in 1998. Each complainant has paid full sital value. The complainants in Case Nos. 1941 & 1942 of 2007 have even paid the registration charges as back as in 2001. In Case No. 1942 of 2007 the complainant has produced the letter dated: 01.08.2002 issued by the opposite party. By this letter the opposite party informed the complainant that registration of the site allotted in his favour would be done by the middle of November-2002 and that the exact date of registration shall be intimated soon after receipt of the approval from the concerned authorities. It is to be noted that the complainant in Case Nos. 1941 of 2007 and 1942 of 2007 were allotted site No. 157 and 158 respectively in ‘E’ Block of the Township. In the version opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have admitted for having got the land converted for non-agricultural purposes obtained approval of the concerned authorities and executed sale deed in favour of many of the members. When by the letter dated: 01.08.2002 the Company informed that, the exact date of registration will be intimated, it was necessary for the Company to call upon the complainants in Case Nos. 1941 & 1942 of 2007 to get the sale deed executed on a particular date. Nothing is placed on record to show that, subsequent to 01.08.2002 the Company intimated the complainant to get the sale deed executed on a particular date. In these circumstances the contention of the opposite parties that the complainants in Case Nos. 1941 & 1942 of 2007 themselves did not come forward in time to get the sale deed registered appears to be a hollow contention. However from the copy of the sale deed dated: 05.12.2006 in favour of Vijaya Bank Employees Co-operative Society, it is seen that the very person who executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one of the Directors of the Company have sold the said lands in favour of Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society. Therefore the Company has not acquired good title over the lands in which site Nos. 157 and 158 in ‘E’ Block allotted in favour of the complainants in Case Nos. 1941 and 1942 of 2007 are formed. But the fact remains that subsequent to 01.08.2002 the Company never called upon the complainants to get the sale deeds executed in their favour. This lapse on the part of the Company clearly amounts to deficiency in service. So far as the sites allotted in favour of the complainants in Case Nos. 1939/2007 and 1940/2007 are concerned, from the material placed on record by the opposite parties it is seen that, the land in which the sites allotted in favour of those complainants are situate are also involved in litigation. From the material on record it is also clear that in spite of receiving the sital value long ago the opposite party failed to execute sale deed in favour of the complainants in those cases also. This act also amounts to deficiency in service. Though the Company has no clear title over the sites allotted to each complainant, the complainants have stated that they are prepared to get the sale deed executed subject to the result of litigation concerning the lands and they are also prepared to take the risk in getting the sale deeds executed in such circumstances. In Appeal No.839/2007 and other connected matters also, finding that the Company had no clear title over the property, the District Forum had ordered refund of the amount paid with interest and compensation, but in Appeal the complainants submitted that they are ready to purchase the sites subject to the risk if any. On the basis of such submission the Honorable State Commission directed the opposite party company to execute sale deed allotted in favour of each complainant subject to the risk involved in purchasing the sites. In the case on hand also, during arguments the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainants are prepared to obtain sale deeds subject to the risk if any involved in the matter. In these circumstances we deem it just and proper to direct the opposite party to execute sale deed in favour of each complainant in respect of the allotted site subject to the risk involved or subject to the result of civil litigation if any raised by the opposite party Company. <br /> <br /> 15. We are not convinced with the claim made by each complainant for grant of compensation of Rs.17,08,000/-, because no basis is made nor any evidence adduced in support of such claim. That apart, when the complainants are prepared to take sale deeds even subject to the risk involved they are not entitled to any compensation. In the result we pass the following:-<br /> Common Order In Case Nos: 1939/07 TO 1942/2007<br /> <br /> 16. The complaints as against opposite party No.3 are dismissed and allowed as against opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. Subject to the risk if any involved in the title or subject to the result of the civil litigation, opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 shall execute sale deed in respect of the sites allotted to each complainants. Compliance of the Order shall be made within Six months from the date of the Order.<br /> <br /> 17. If the company fails to acquire valid title to the sites in order to transfer the same in favour of the complainants, the complainants are at liberty to initiate fresh legal proceedings before the proper Forum for appropriate relief in accordance with law.<br /> <br /> 18. The Original of this Order shall be kept in Case No.1939/2007 and a true copy of the Order shall be kept in each of the other cases.<br /> <br /> 19. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 20. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2007.<br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />