AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
THE 1st Complainant is an association registered under Societies Registration Act and Complainants 2 to 16 are its Members. THE Opposite Party promoted a lay out scheme in respect of Survey No. 618 of Velacheri village in 1982 and sold plots. Initially, lay out plan specifically provided for east west Link road 20 ft., broad and 60 ft. long north of Plot No. 7. On the basis of this lay out plan several persons purchased these plots including Complainants 2 to 16. Subsequently, the Opposite Party sold away this road portion along with Plot No. 7 on the south. But Plot No. 6, further south which belonged to the Opposite Party was lying vacant and was being used by the purchasers of the plots as passage and as a Link road till about 5 months ago. Electric posts are also fixed in that land. About 5 months ago, the Opposite Party suddenly put up a fence with barred wire on all sides of Plot No. 6 and a thatched "cow shed and thus illegally prevented the Complainants and other plot owners from using it as a Link road. THE Opposite Party has subsequently prepared another plan without this east-west road. As a result of the fencing of Plot No. 6, the purchasers of Plots in this lay out are forced to take a long deviation to reach the main road, on the east. This amounts to gross deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for directing the Opposite Party to provide the Link road in Plot Nos. 6.20 ft. wide and 60 ft. long and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Opposite Party resisted the claim. It is admitted that the Opposite Party owned Survey No. 618 which is Nanja land. It is denied that any colony came into existence in 1982 or any lay out was prepared by the opposite party in 1982. The opposite party sold to 10 petitioners in 1982 lands only as agricultural lands, and not as plots in any lay out plan. Those purchasers who purchased in 1982 are not, therefore, entitled to claim any compensation on the basis of any layout plan. The opposite party prepared the lay out plan in 1988 in the name of "Sri Sathya Sai Nagar" but the plan is not yet approved. He has subsequently sold plots to others as per the lay out plan but the lay out plan is annexed only to the Sale Deed in favour of the 10th complainant. The opposite party never promised that there will be a link road 20 x 60 ft. The complainant is not therefore entitled to any relief in respect of the road or claim any compensation. Plot No. 6 belonged to the opposite party and the complainants have been using it unauthorisingly. The opposite party was therefore constrained to put up a fence for his plot. It is also the case of the opposite party that there is already a Link road and there is no necessity for another Link road.
Exs. A1 to A9 are marked by consent. Proof of affidavits are filed. No document is filed by the opposite party.
THE point for consideration is whether there has been any deficiency on the part of the opposite party and to what relief if any are the complainants entitled ? Point:-The complainants claimed to be plot owners, some of whom have put up houses in Nethaji Colony in Velacheri Village. The opposite party was owner of Survey No. 618. According to the complainants the opposite party prepared a lay out plan in his Survey No. 618 and sold plots in 1982 and subsequently in 1988. The contention of the opposite party is that no lay out plan was prepared by him in 1982 and the sale deeds executed by him in 1982 to about 10 persons was only in respect of agricultural lands and not in respect of plots in any lay out. This contention is not seriously challenged before us. The complainants have not produced any sale deed executed by the opposite party in 1982 in order to find out whether what is sold was only an agricultural land or any plot in a prepared lay out. We have therefore to accept the opposite party''s contention that the deeds of sale executed by him in 1982 were only in respect of agricultural lands and not in respect of any plot in any lay out.
IT is admitted by the opposite party that in 1988 he prepared a lay out plan in the name of Sri Sathya Sai Nagar and sold plots. The plan has not however been approved by the M.M.D.A. Ex. A-l is one such sale deed dated 19.6.88 in favour of the 10th complainant, G. Ramalingam. To this sale deed, the lay out plan is annexed. What is sold under Ex. A-l is Plot No. 10 in the annexed lay out. Ex. A-20 is another deed of sale executed by the opposite party in favour of the 16th complainant, V. Kalidas and the plot sold under this deed of sale is Plot No. 7. The lay out in Ex. A-l is separately marked by us as Ex. A1(a) for the purpose of reference. In this lay out, which is signed by the opposite party and the members of his family there is a 20 ft. road north of plot No. 7 (this lay out is drawn upside down). The upper portion is shown as south instead of north. This link road provides access to these plot owners to the main road which lies on the east. IT is quite reasonable to infer that the purchasers from the opposite party of the plots in this lay out must have entered into the sale under the impression that this Link road will be available to them for access to the main road. But subsequently, the opposite party has under Ex. A-2 deed of sale dated 15.12.1988 sold Plot No. 7 just south of this Link road with the Link road included therein. As a result of this deed of sale, the plot purchasers were deprived of the use of this Link road but they have been using Plot No. 6 just on the south which belonged to the opposite party and which was lying vacant as passage to the main road. In other words. Plot No. 6 was being used by the plot owners as the Link road. The electricity board has also fixed a post in this plot No. 6 used as Link road. About 5 months prior to the filing of this complaint, the opposite party has now put up a fence all round the flat No. 6 thus preventing the plot owners having access through this plot to the main road. The plot owners who have purchased the plots on the assumption that there is a Link road have now been deprived of the facility of a Link road connecting the north to south road in the layout with the main road on the east. This amounts to deficiency in service and the complainants are entitled to insist upon the opposite party to restore the Link road. The complainants have further claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- for which there is no basis. We are not inclined to award any compensation. In the result, we order as follows:- 1. The opposite party shall provide a Link road in Plot No. 6 in Ex. Al(a) lay out plan 20 ft. wide and 60 ft. long connecting the north-south road with the main road in the east within 3 months from the date of this order. 2. The opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainants. Complaint allowed with costs.