AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
An affidavit of service of notice on Respondent No. 15, namely, M/s Paxco, a proprietorship concern of one Biswajit Ghosh, has been filed by the Clerk of Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Although the notice was required to be served by dasti process but, as per the affidavit, it has been sent by post and, as per the service report furnished by the Postal Department, the same has been served on the addressee. In view of the said affidavit, the said Respondent is deemed to have been served.
All other Respondents have since been deleted from the array of the parties name vide order dated 21.11.2016.
Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No.15, the Developer of the flats in question, we have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Complainants.
The short controversy falling for consideration in this set of four Revision Petitions is whether having constructed the flats, on the basis of the permission granted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short "the Municipal Corporation"), and put the Complainants in possession of their respective flats, there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Developer in not obtaining the occupancy/completion certificate in respect of the said flats and furnishing the same to the Complainants?
From the documents available on record, including the Written Version filed on behalf of the Developer, it is evident that after the construction of the flats in question, the land, over which the flats were constructed, was included in the list of "Khatal" properties, and consequently the property vest in the Government. It has been the consistent stand of the Developer that unless the record of the Municipal Corporation is rectified by the Competent Authority, namely, Controller of Thika Tenancy, Kolkata, and the subject property is deleted as non-Khatal, occupancy/completion certificate cannot be issued by the Municipal Corporation. Thus, according to the Developer, the cause for the present situation is the subsequent act of the State Government in including the area in question as "Khatal" property.
Having heard learned Counsel for the Complainants and perused the record, we are of the view that though some defence may be available to the Developer to justify his inaction or delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate but it does not exonerate him from its obligation for obtaining the occupancy certificate and supplying the same to the Complainants, as stipulated in the sale agreements.
Under the circumstances, we dispose of the present Revision Petitions, with a direction to the Developer, who had put the Complainants in possession of the respective flats, to apply for exclusion of the property in question from the list of "Khatal" properties with the Competent Authority, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and obtain the occupancy certificate immediately thereafter. Learned Counsel for the Complainants has assured us that they will render all possible cooperation to the Developer in this regard, including payment of any statutory amounts, as may be demanded by the Competent Authority.
All the Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.