BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 27.06.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M   :         LADY MEMBER

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 25/2022

ORDER

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.    The Petitioner has filed this Review Petition under section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking to review and to recall the order dated: 21.09.2022 in Appeal No.467/2021 in the interest of justice and equity.

02.    Heard arguments of both parties. 

03.    Perused the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore, in Consumer Complaint No.412/2018, dated: 10.02.2021 and the Appeal Order passed by this Commission in Appeal No.467/2021, dated: 21.09.2021. 

04.    Admittedly the Respondent No.1 had acquired the land for the benefit of members of the Petitioner’s Society and after forming layout over the said land by the Petitioner’s Society on 19.02.1989 House property bearing No.24 at Block No.22, Maduvana Layout, Srirampura 2^nd Stage, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysore was allotted to one Mr. Basavaraju, S/o. Late B.Shivappa by the Petitioner’s society.  On 11.06.1992 the Respondent No.1 - MUDA had entered in to Lease-cum-Sale Agreement with the said Basavaraju and possession of the said site was handed-over to him on 23.06.1992 and subsequently Khata of the said site was also issued to the Basavaraju.  Thereafter on 24.05.2006 Sri Basavaraju had executed Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr. K. Kumareshan, the father of Respondent No.2 and the same was registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mysore, with a power to sell the site No.24.  On 22.07.2006 Sri. K. Kumareshan had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Respondent No.2 and possession was also given to him and subsequent to the said sale deed, the Mysore City Corporation had mutated the Khata of site No.24 in favour of Respondent No.2.  Thereafter Respondent No.2 had constructed a house on the site No.24 after obtaining licence from Mysore City Corporation and approved plan from Respondent No.1 – MUDA and subsequently the Respondent No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the said suit schedule property Site No.24. 

05.       Now the main dispute arises when the Respondent No.2 approached Respondent No.1 seeking execution of the registered Sale Deed/Title Deed in his favour and when the Respondent No.1 had refused for it vide its Endorsement dated: 05.10.2018 claiming that, the Site No.24 is reserved for parks.  Hence the Respondent No.2 had filed Consumer Complaint No.412/2018 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore and after going through the matter the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore, vide its order dated: 10.02.2021 had allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent No.1 - MUDA to execute the Sale Deed in respect of Site No.24 in favour of Respondent No.2 within 60 days along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. 

06.    Thereafter aggrieved by the said District Commission’s Order the Respondent No.1- MUDA had preferred Appeal No.467/2021 before this Commission challenging the District Commission’s Order passed in C.C. No.412/2018.  And this Commission had passed an Order dated: 21.09.2021 by giving direction to the Madhuvana Society to allot a new site to the complainant within six months from the date of Appeal order in some other layout which was formed by them instead of Site No.24 and for which the Respondent No.1 - MUDA has to give liberty to Madhuvana Society to allot an alternative site to the complainant by set asiding the orders of District Commission.   Aggrieved by the said Appeal order, dated: 21.09.2021, the Petitioner – Madhuvana Society had preferred this Review Petition.

07.    In this Review Petition the grounds urged by the Petitioner – Madhuvana Society is that, the Respondent No.1 – MUDA had granted and approved the plan for construction of house by the Respondent No.2 after collecting fees in Site No.24 and the Respondent No.2 had constructed the House in the suit schedule property site No.24 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and now the question of allotting alternative site from the Appellant - Madhavan Society does not arise at all.

08.    From the above submissions made by both the parties before the District Commission and as well as before this Commission it is an admitted fact that, after obtaining necessary approval from Mysore City Corporation and by making payment of requisite fee the Respondent No.2/complainant had constructed a residential House in the suit schedule property site No.24 and at present the Respondent No.2/complainant is in the possession and enjoyment of the same.  At this juncture it is not just and proper to award allotment of alternative site to the Respondent No.2/complainant in a different layout formed by the Appellant - Madhavan Society instead of Site No.24 as without considering the cost incurred by the Respondent No.2/complainant towards construction of residential house it will not give proper justice to the case on hand.  Further it is also pertinent to note here that, as per Section 32(5) of the Karnataka Urban Development Act the suite schedule property site No.24 was reserved for park which should be transferred to the MUDA for development of park and civic amenities.  Hence the order dated: 21.09.2021 passed in Appeal No.467/2021, so also the order dated: 10.02.2021 passed in CC No.412/2018 are set aside and the matter was remanded back to the District Commission to consider afresh by affording an opportunity to both parties and dispose-off the same within two months as observation made above.  Accordingly Review Application stands disposed-off.

09.    Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the Review Petition.  Separate

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

KNMP*