KUMAR R. PRIOLKAR vs REAL ESTATE AGENCIES

THE complainants have filed the present complaint alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and have claimed refund of the amount Rs. 7,00,000/- being the price of the land along with cost of stamp paper, registration fees, interest as well as compensation totalling to Rs. (7,70,060.00 + Rs. 6,71,992.00).

BRIEFLY stated it is the case of the complainants that they executed Deed of Sale dated 16.8.2001 with the opposite parties by which they purchased a plot of land admeasuring 231 sq. mts. out of the property bearing Chalta No. 48 of P.T. Sheet No. 115 at Miramar, Panaji - Goa for a price of Rs. 7,00,000/-. By letter dated 10.10.2001, the complainants called upon the opposite party No. 1(b) to transfer the Municipal and Planning and Development Authority licences; however, the same was not complied with the complainants were unable to commence construction of their Bungalow on the said plot. The complainants also come to know that there was a proposed road passing through the plot purchased by them and that the Planning and Development Authority had restrained the opposite parties from commencing any construction activities in the said plot. Opposite party No. 2 had also filed an application before Superintendent of Surveys and Land Records for stay of the order passed by the Inspector of Surveys and Land Records whereby the names of the opposite party No. 1 was included in the Survey Records pertaining to the said property; the stay order came to be granted by the said Appellate Authority by its order dated 25.7.2002. Opposite party No. 2 had also made an application to Panjim Municipal Council alleging that the opposite party No. 1 had encroached on to their property, and the Municipal Council had directed the opposite party No. 1 vide its order dated 6.2.2002 to stop all construction work in Chalta No. 48 sold to the complainants. As a result of the above, the complainants were unable to commence any construction in the said property and thereby put to great financial loss. The opposite party No. 1 sold a portion of the eight metre wide approach road to the complainants which was actually meant for approach road for opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 sold the said plot under Chalta No. 48 to the opposite party No. 2 and knowingly again sold the same land to the complainants and, therefore, adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

Upon being noticed the opposite parties filed their written version. It was contended that this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the dispute of ownership. On merits, execution of the Sale Deed was admitted. So also, receipt of letter dated 10.10.2001 was also admitted. However, it was denied that any road was sold to the opposite party No. 2 in the said plot. The North Goa Planning and Development Authority also withdrew its order passed on 21.9.2001. The order of the Municipality came to be issued because the complainants commenced an illegal construction in the said plot. It was contended that no land was sold to the opposite party No. 2 for purpose of approach road. It was submitted that all the documents were handed over to the complainants prior to execution of Sale Deed and that there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

OPPOSITE party No. 2 was added as a party to these proceedings and filed its written version. Succinctly, the opposite party No. 2 contended that the plots sold to the complainants included the eight metre wide approach road and that was purchased by the Society from the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 had no right or title or interest to sell the approach road either to the complainants or anyone else. Parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence along with annexures.

HEARD Mr. N.S. Kaissare and Mr. D.Y. Sawant for opposite party No. 1 on behalf of the parties. In a nutshell, the grievance of the complainants is that they are unable to utilise the suit plot by undertaking any construction activity thereon in view of the imperfect title of the opposite party No. 1. It is an admitted fact that the parties executed a Deed of Sale dated 16.8.2001 for the sale of the suit plot admeasuring 231 sq. mts. out of the property bearing Chalta No. 48 of P.T. Sheet No. 115. It is also an admitted fact that the Panjim Planning and Development Authority and the Panjim Municipal Council had directed the opposite party No. 1 to stop all construction work in the said plot in view of the complaint lodged by the opposite party No. 2. It is also an admitted fact that Land Survey Authorities have stayed the order of the Inquiry Officer, Panjim City Survey whereby the name of the opposite party No. 1 was included in the Record of Rights of the plot. The opposite party No. 1 have denied the allegation that the suit plot had already been sold to the opposite party No. 2 for the purpose of access. However, it is pertinent to note that learned Superintendent of Surveys and Land Records, Panaji has made an observation at page 2 of his order at Exh. "S 7" that "prima facie" it was evident that the access road of 8 mts. width belonging to the La Campala Society (opposite party No. 2 herein) includes the suit plot under Chalta No. 48 of P.T. Sheet No. 115. Although it is true that the said observation was made upon preliminary perusal of the documents, the said observations made by the Survey Appellate Authority are significant and cannot be overlooked.

IN these circumstances, the complainants would be entitled to refund of the amount paid by them along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of payment till final settlement.

THE complainants have prayed for compensation under various heads at paras 8 and 9 of the complaint. We are of the opinion that the complainants would be entitled to refund of the costs and expenses incurred wherever bills and payments supporting voucher have been produced. In the light of what is stated above, we pass the following order : (i) The opposite party No. 1 are directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from date of payment till final settlement within 30 days. (ii) The opposite party No. 1 are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,17,240/- within 30 days. (iii) The opposite party No. 1 are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as costs of this litigation. Ordered accordingly.

Complaint allowed.