V R RAJU vs NARNE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD

THE unsuccessful complainant preferred this appeal against the order of District Forum-I, Hyderabad. The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased plot No. 29 in an extent of 300 sq. yards in phase-1 at Central Park of Kondapur village, Serlingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District on 15. 3. 2000 at an agreed rate of Rs. 500 per sq. yard from the respondent. He paid the entire sale consideration besides Rs. 22,500 towards registration charges. While so on 14. 10. 2002 the respondent demanded him to pay Rs. 57,500 for obtaining clearance from Urban Land Ceiling Department, which according to him (the complainant) was illegal and beyond the terms of allotment letter. Since he was not given physical possession, he was not liable to pay the same. While alleging deficiency in service, on the part of the respondent, he filed a complaint to direct the opposite party to register the plot besides compensation and costs.

THE opposite party resisted the complaint. However it admitted that it had sold the said plot to him for Rs. 1,25,000 out of total cost of Rs. 1,50,000. It gave concession of Rs. 25,000 to him, since he was its employee. It has also admitted the deposit of Rs. 25,000 towards registration charges. It alleged that it has purchased the land from original owner under an agreement of sale. After obtaining provisional sanction of the lay out from HUDA, it has developed the land into residential plots and allotted one plot to the complainant. Later, some land in which, the complainant''s plot is also situated was declared as excess land by the ULC authorities against the original owner. It was a subsequent development. It was not in its knowledge. It could not convey right, title and interest in the plot to the complainant. It has sought regularization of excess land by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 455 Rev. (U. C. I.) Department dated 29. 7. 2002 and directed the complainant to pay Rs. 57,000 to meet the expenses for regularization. This amount is not the actual cost of the developed plot as on today. Similar allottees have availed the benefit of the said G. O. Since it was not a their fault and the offer made by it was not accepted by him, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant filed affidavit evidence besides Exs. A1 to A8 while the opposite parties filed Exs. B1 to B7 the correspondence made between them.

The District Forum after considering the material on record opined that the complainant was not entitled for registration of the plot. However, he was entitled for refund of Rs. 1,25,000 + Rs. 22,500 towards registration charges with interest @ 12% p. a. , from 1. 2. 2001 till the date of complaint, and thereafter @ 9% p. a. , together with costs.

AGGRIEVED by the said decision the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not consider the facts in a correct perspective. It ought to have directed the respondent to register the plot in view of the fact that he has paid the entire sale consideration amount together with registration charges. The demand of Rs. 57,000 towards regularization charges is illegal. It constitutes deficiency in service. Since the respondent had purchased the land from the original owner and is in possession of land it has to pay for regularization of land, and bound to obtain clearance from the ULC to get the land registered in his favour. If, for any reason, the District Forum intended to direct the respondent to return the said consideration, it ought to have directed the respondent to pay the present market value. He prayed that the appeal be allowed. The point that arises for consideration whether the complainant is entitled for registration of plot in his favour or in the alternative damages together with the consideration paid by him?

IT is an undisputed fact that the complainant, who was an employee of respondent company, had purchased plot No. 29 admeasuring 300 sq. yards in Phase-I at Central Park of Kondapur village, Serlingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District @ Rs. 500 per sq. yard as long back as on 15. 3. 1996. He paid the last instalment on 15. 3. 2000. He has also paid Rs. 22,500 towards registration charges on 8. 2. 2001. It may be stated that, despite the fact that the complainant had fulfilled his part as on 8. 2. 2001, as per the terms and conditions of contract entered into between them on 18. 4. 1996, the respondent did not execute the sale deed. For the first time on 14. 10. 2002, after the payment of entire sale consideration and registration charges the respondent demanded the complainant to pay Rs. 57,500 for obtaining clearance from the ULC Department on the ground that the original owner was declared to be holding land in excess of prescribed ceiling area. Ex. B7 the order of ULC Dept. dated 4. 9. 2003 was filed in order to show that the original owner was declared as holding land in excess of the ceiling area as against 45222. 99 sq. mtrs. and 1,35,466. 63 sq. mtrs. he was found to be holding surplus to an extent of 25,326. 70 sq. mtrs. The contention of the respondent is that the plot of the complainant is situated in this surplus area. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 57,500 has to be paid towards regularization charges as per G. O. Ms. No. 455 Revenue (U. C. III) Department dated 29. 7. 2002 marked as Ex. B6. In fact this was prior to the order passed by the ULC under Ex. B7. The respondent contends that other purchasers paid the amount and regularized their purchases. The fact that the respondent had paid this amount along with others in order to regularize the same is not evidenced by any document. Since the complainant entered into agreement on 15. 3. 1996 about 12 years prior to passing of regularization G. O. and 7 years prior to the orders holding the owners as surplus land area, the complainant having paid the entire amount prior to all these proceedings, he ought not to have been mulcted with the above said charges. Had the respondent registered the sale deed immediately on receipt of registration charges, the complainant would have sorted out the matter, if necessary, he should have paid the amount. The respondent for the best reasons known to it, did not register the plot. If we may say so, the material on record shows that the proceedings against the owners were commenced in the year 1976, since the very U. L. (Candr) Act was passed in 1976. Even by that date, the complainant had already purchased the property. This unilateral demand asking the complainant to pay Rs. 57,500 towards clearance from ULC cannot be upheld. It is not known how the amount would come to Rs. 57,500. In fact, in one of its letters Ex. B4 it is stated that "we sincerely urge upon you to kindly pay and amount of Rs. 57,500 towards Caution Deposit which is inclusive of fee payable to Government plus incidental charges for obtaining the clearance from the ULC Department and to approach the Government for orders regularising your possession over the vacant land admeasuring 300 square yards in plot No. 29 (CP) of Central Park Phase-I. " Evidently, the complainant was not given possession. It is not known as to the amount that is payable towards caution deposit. It is not known, how much the complainant had to pay to the Government. It is not known, what were the incidental charges. All this is vague. Under the guise of payment of amount towards regularization charges the respondent intended to recover some more amounts, not exactly recoverable from him. In the process, the respondent would see that the complainant may not be able to pay and consequently he would be benefited by selling the very same plot to third parties. The complainant cannot be found fault for not depositing the entire amount sought by the respondent.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent contended that as per Ex. B6 G. O. , the regularization in respect of concerned lands would be considered if the interested parties withdraw their cases and decide not to carry in further appeal. As the entire land was declared as excess land, the Government''s offer was communicated to all the allottees including the complainant and asked for payments for regularization. As the other allottees came forward for regularization, the original owners did not prefer any appeal. Since the allottees formed an association and represented seeking regularization it did not initiate any action against the original owner for appropriate remedy.

WE may state that the record does not disclose any such effort on the part of respondent. In fact, as it had purchaed the property, it ought to have got the regularization, on payment of amount. After regularization, the respondent could have asked the complainant to pay pro rata amount. Without making any payment for regularization, the respondent cannot ask the complainant to pay pro rata amount. Moreover, as we have stated earlier, no mention was made as to the payment of the amount towards regularization. It is not the case of the respondent that the said land was sold to third parties. In fact, during the course of hearing, when the respondent represented that no plots were available, we directed the appellant to file a memo as to the availability of plots. He filed a memo mentioning that three plots are available. The respondent contended that those three plots were allotteed to his relatives. No data was furnished. In the encumbrance certificate which was taken as recently as on 5. 3. 2008 the Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy has shown that no registration took place in regard to the land of the complainant. In view of the fact that the said plot is available for registration and in the light of the fact that the complainant had paid the entire sale consideration inclusive of registration charges as long back as on 8. 2. 2001 even before all these proceedings were taken, we hold that he is entitled to get the same registered in his favour. The respondent had not filed any receipt showing the amounts that were spent towards regularization charges to the Government to regularize the said plot. The respondent if not already paid, pay the amounts to Government within one month and obtain orders of regularization. The complainant would be directed to pay the said amount within one month on the receipt filed by the respondent. On refusal to show any evidence, the complainant is entitled to get the land registered in his name by the respondent without further demand of any amount.

Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that after disposal of the C. D. the respondent has paid an amount of Rs. 2,15,620 by way of cheque to the appellant was directed by the District Forum. The appellant had encashed it on 19. 2. 2005, therefore, no action survives against it. We may mention here that the complainant while acknowledging the cheque made an endorsement received under protest as he intends to seek fruther remedies. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the receipt of amount, it cannot be directed to execute the sale deed. This contention cannot be up held. The respondent is directed to pay the said amount within one month from the date of this order with interest @ 6% p. a. in view of the fact that, he had enjoyed the said amount. As such, he received the said amount however, under protest. By receiving cheque amount he will not lose his right of preferring appeal, and insisting for registration of land. In fact, at the time of arguments, it was informed by the respondent that the cost of plot is more than Rs. 50 lakh. Obviously, that was the reason why the respondent was bent upon scuttling registration of plot in favour of complainant by sending the amount. Otherwise, it would not have returned the amount. The moment the order was passed, the appellant filed the appeal and contesting all through. We feel that it is a fit case, where the complainant is entitled to get the plot registered in his name.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum in C. D. 35/2004 is set aside. The complainant is directed to deposit Rs. 2,15,620 received by way of cheque dated 12. 2. 2005 within one month from the date of this order. The complainant is also directed to deposit the amount paid towards regularization by the respondent within one month, on the memo to be filed by the respondent along with the receipt of this order together with registration charges on such deposit the opposite parties are directed to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and deliver possession within one month. Each party to bear its own costs. Appeal allowed.