AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this complaint the Complainant has sought the relief of restoration of possession of site No. 446, I stage, VI Phase, West of Chord Road, Bangalore which was reconveyed to her by the B.D.A on 8.6.1982. As she found some encroachment on the site requested the B.D.A. to land over possession of the said site in vacant position to her by her letter of 19.6.1992. The Complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought the relief, as referred above.
THE Opposite Party-B.D.A. filed its version and admitted the fact that site No. 446 was reconveyed to the Complainant on 8.6.1982. THE Opposite Party further averred that if any third person were to be in possession of the said site reconveyed and allotted to the Complainant, it was the responsibility of the Complainant to initiate necessary legal action to get the said encroachment removed from the site. THE Opposite Party on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry the husband of the Complainant filed the affidavit. The Opposite Party filed the xerox copies of the certain Correspondence between the Complainant and the Opposite Party.
We have heard the husband of the Complainant and the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have perused the pleadings of the parties.
THE material averments in the complaint read as under:- "Site No. 446, 1st Stage, VI Phase, West of Chord Road, Bangalore-44 was reconveyed and allotted to me by the Commissioner of B.D.A Bangalore vide PC.No. PR.28/82-S3 dated 8.6.82. As some encroachment was there on site No. 446,1 requested the Commissioner to hand over site No. 446, in vacant position vide my letter dated 19.6.92. Though nine years passed, inspite of my several oral, personal and written requests, the Commissioner of B. D. A. has not handed over the site in vacant position, till today."
THEse are the same averments made even in the affidavit of the husband of the Complainant. It is clear from these averments that though the site was allotted in favour of the Complainant in the year 1982, according to her, she found some encroachment on the site on 8.6.1982 but she filed the complaint only on 11-5-92 seeking relief, as referred above.
THE husband of the Complainant has averred that in the year 1987 the B.D.A had sent a letter assuring to hand over vacant possession of the site allotted to her. When the Opposite Party failed to get vacant possession in favour of the Complainant the Complainant submitted one more representation on 20.1.1988 to Opposite Party-B.D.A. and the B.D.A. had by its letter dated 5.11.1988 communicated to the Complainant that they had already taken steps in the matter. THEreafter, the complaint came to be filed only on 11.5.1992. These admitted facts would clearly go to show that the complaint of the Complainant is highly belated. The Complainant has not offered any explanation for this inordinate delay in filing the complaint. Therefore, in our view, this complaint has to be dismissed on this ground of limitation itself.
IN the result, therefore, this complaint is dismissed as barred by time. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Complaint dismissed.