Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1.       The complainant Smt. B.S. Latha, Bangalore has filed this complaint against the opposite party No.1 Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru.   Opposite party No.2 SBM Employees House Building Co-operative Society praying to direct the opposite party No.1 to issue Title Deed in the name of complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and  cost.

2. The brief facts are that:-

The complainant is the member of 2^nd opposite party society, the 2^nd opposite party had allotted a site measuring 60 X 40 feet bearing No.13 to the complainant on 01.08.1993 at block No.33, SBM layout, Srirampura 2^nd stage, Mysuru.Thereafter on 09.11.1994 the 1^st opposite party executed a registered deed of lease cum sale agreement.On 21.01.1995 possession of schedule property handed over to complainant by opposite party No.1 and also issued possession certificate and on 23.02.1995 khataand Kandaya patra were issued by opposite party No.1 and the complainant is paying taxes to opposite party No.1 regularly.It is further contended that on many occasions the complainant demanded opposite party No.1 to issue Title Deed in respect of schedule property.It is further contended that the complainant gathered the information regarding filing of cases prior to causing written request to opposite party No.1. On 20.10.2016 the complainant has given application to opposite party No.1 seeking Title Deed.But the opposite party No.1 had issued endorsement dated 03.11.2016 stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park, hence Title Deed cannot be issued.The act of the opposite party No.1 in not discharging its statutory obligation/duty in issuing the Title Deed to complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.Hence, this complaint.

3. After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  In spite of service of notice upon the opposite party  No.2 it does not turned up.  Hence, opposite party No.2  was placed exparte.    Opposite party No.1 appeared before this Commission through its counsel and filed its version.     The opposite party No.1 in its version has contended that the complainant  has not come up with the present complaint before this Commission with clean hands and the same is  not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence the same is liable to be dismissed and he admits the para No.1 to 5 of the complaint as true,  with regard to allotment of site No.13 to complainant by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 and execution of registered lease cum sale agreement dated 09.11.1994 and issuance of possession certificate and khatha certificate, khandayam,  receipts dated 23.02.1995 by opposite party No.1 in favour of complainant and also admitted issuance of endorsement dated 03.11.2016 in favour of complainant by opposite party No.1 stating that the schedule property  comes within the area earmarked for park, but denied the averments made in the complaint that the opposite party No.1 had assured to issue Title Deed in favour of complainant and contended that as the schedule site comes within the area earmarked for park Title Deed not issued and stated that the averments made in the complaint that opposite party No.2 is made as formal party is not correct.  Since the opposite party No.2 had formed layout and allotted sites.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The complainant in order to prove her case has filed her affidavit evidence by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked documents Exhibit P.1 to P8.  On the other hand opposite party No.1 has also filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as R.W.1 but not got marked any documents.

5.      We have heard the orals arguments of both sides.  Opposite party No.1 has filed written arguments also.

6.     The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that  the act of opposite party No.1 in not issuing Title Deed in her favour in respect of schedule property amounts to deficiency in service?
2.  What order?

7.          Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- In the affirmative;

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point No.1:- The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued and submitted as per the contention taken in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and documentary evidence produced by complainant.  On the other hand counsel for opposite party No.1 also vehemently argued as per the contention taken in his version and notes of arguments.

9.       We have carefully gone through the records and averments made in the complaint, affidavit of complainant, documents produced by the complainant and the contention taken in the version of opposite party No.1  and notes of arguments.

10.      The complainant has produced Exhibit P.1 to 6 i.e., allotment letter dated 01.08.1993, lease cum sale agreement dated 09.11.1994, possession certificate dated 21.01.1995, khata patra dated 23.02.1995 and tax paid receipts in respect of schedule site and endorsement dated 03.11.2016.

11.      It is not in dispute that opposite party No.2 after purchase of several lands formed SBM layout, Srirampura 2^nd stage, Mysuru,  by obtaining sanction from opposite party No.1 and as per approved plan carved sites in the layout and allotted to its members, the complainant is one  such allottee in respect of schedule site.

12. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party No.2 allotted site No.13 to the complainant on 01.08.1993 and the opposite party No.1 on 09.11.1994 executed lease cum sale agreement in favour of complainant in respect of schedule property and on 21.01.1995 issued possession certificate and handed over possession of schedule property to complainant and also issued khatha certificate  and tax paid receipt on 23.02.1995 and it is also not in dispute that the complainant has been  paying taxes to opposite party No.1 regularly.  But it is the case of the complainant that on 20.10.2016 she had given an application to opposite party No.1 seeking Title Deed.  But to the shock and surprise of the complainant on 03.11.2016 the opposite party No.1 had issued an endorsement stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park, therefore Title Deed cannot be issued.  Hence, the opposite party No.1 declined to issue Title Deed in favour of complainant in respect of schedule property.  Therefore having no other go the complainant has approached this Commission with this complaint praying to direct opposite party No.1 to issue Title Deed.  The endorsement  produced by complainant dated 03.11.2016, issued by opposite party No.1 clearly go to show that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park,  therefore Title Deed cannot be issued.

13. Though the opposite party No.1 has contended as per its endorsement dated 03.11.2016 stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park hence Title
    Deed cannot be issued in respect of schedule property, but no documents are produced by opposite party No.1 such as  approved/sanctioned plan of the layout formed by opposite party No.2 showing that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park and it is pertinent to note that on 01.08.1993 itself the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 had allotted schedule site to complainant and subsequently executed lease cum sale agreement dated 09.11.1994, issued possession certificate on 21.01.1995 and also issued khatha certificate and tax paid receipts on 23.02.1995.  But after lapse of 23 years i.e.,  on 03.11.2016 the opposite party No.1 had issued endorsement to complainant stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park. At this juncture the question would arise as to why the opposite party No.1 has kept quiet for all these 23 years in not intimating the complainant stating that the schedule property is comes within the area earmarked for park.  For this no answer from opposite party No.1.

14. It is the duty of the opposite party No.1 to ascertain as to whether the schedule site is comes within the area earmarked for park as per the approved/sanctioned plan before allotment of schedule site to complainant and execution of registered lease cum sale agreement and issuance of possession certificate and khatha and taxes paid receipts.  But the opposite party No.1 had issued all these documents such as lease cum sale deed, possession certificate, khatha certificate and tax paid receipts.  Under such circumstances at this stage the contention taken by opposite party No.1 by issuing endorsement dated 03.11.2016 stating that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park, therefore Title Deed cannot be issued in favour of the complainant in respect of the schedule property cannot be believed and accepted and in the absence of production of approved/ sanctioned plan showing that the schedule property is comes within the area earmarked for park.  The contention taken by the opposite party No.1 that the schedule property comes within the area earmarked for park cannot be relied upon and prima-facie it shows that the act of the opposite party No.1 in not issuing Title Deed infavour of the complainant in respect of schedule property appears to be fishy and there is malafide intention behind it to harass the complainant and not for any other reason.  Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved that the act of the opposite party No.1 in not issuing Title Deed in her favour in respect of schedule property amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party No.1 is liable to issue Title Deed/Registered Sale Deed in favour of complainant in respect of schedule property.

15.      Since the complainant has not sought for any reliefs against opposite party No.2, the complaint against opposite party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.  And in view of the opposite party No.1 being the Government Statutory Authority it cannot be directed to pay compensation to complainant as prayed in the complaint, since the public tax money cannot be allowed to misuse.    Hence, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

16. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

The complaint filed by complainant is allowed.

The opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to issue/execute Title Deed/Sale Deed in favour of complainant in respect of schedule property within 3 months from the date of this order.

 The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 8^th September, 2020)