1. -AN Urban Development Authority constituted under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act has played fraud on a person who was allotted site, in order to allot the same site in favour of a person who is close to the corridors of the Authorities.
2. FOR the sake of convenience, the parties in this Order are referred to according to their position in the complaint filed before the District Forum.
This Appeal is by the Opposite Party (for short, "op") challenging the Order dated 19. 7. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Mysore, in Complaint No. 75/2007, by which the District Forum has allowed the complaint of the complainant.
The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that pursuant to the Notification issued by the OP calling for applications for allotment of sites in the Layout called "vijayanagar IV Stage, Mysore", the Complainant filed application by paying the necessary fee. In addition, the Complainant also paid a sum of Rs. 15,000 as Initial Deposit. The application of the Complainant was considered along with applications of other Applicants and a site bearing No. 780 measuring 50'' x 80'' in Vijayanagar IV Stage Layout was allotted to him. The case of the Complainant is that he was not served with any Notice or Order of Allotment issued by the OP and, therefore, he was not in a position to pay the sital value in order to get the Sale Deed or the Lease-cum- Sale Deed executed in his favour. In the meanwhile, the OP issued a paper publication dated 6. 5. 2005 calling upon the allottees who were not served with orders of allotment of sites, to produce documents and to pay the sital value in order to get the sites allotted in their favour. Prior to the issuance of the said Notification, the complainant having come to know of allotment of site in his favour has requested the OP to permit him to pay the remaining sital value in order to get the Lease -cum- Sale Deed executed in his favour as per his letter dated 20. 4. 2005. In the said letter, the complainant has stated that he was not served with the order of allotment issued by the OP. But the officials of the OP have mentioned in the office records that the OP has received Rs. 40,000 from the Complainant, even though the Complainant has not paid the said amount. Pursuant to the Notification published in the Newspapers on 6. 6. 2005, the complainant had written a letter to the OP on 6. 6. 2005 itself requesting the OP to permit him to pay the remaining sital value in order to get the Lease -cum- Sale Deed executed in his favour. But the OP did not take any action on the said representation. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the OP but the OP did not reply to the legal notice also. The complainant also submitted a representation to the then Deputy Chief Minister and requested for his intervention in the matter. In the said representation the complainant had stated that he was ready and willing to pay the sital value pursuant to the allotment of site in his favour. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum for a direction to the OP to allot the site or to grant suitable relief.
3. THE case of the OP before the District Forum was that the order of allotment has been served on the complainant and thereafter several notices were issued to him calling upon him to pay the remaining sital value in order to get the Lease-cum-Sale Deed executed pursuant to the order of allotment in his favour and that since the complainant did not respond to the notices, the OP had no other option but to cancel the allotment made in favour of the complainant and allot the site in favour of another applicant one Mr. C. Anantharamu.
The District Forum by a well considered order has recorded a specific finding that the officials of the OP have played fraud on the Complainant and unjustly allotted the site which was earlier allotted in favour of the Complainant, to Sri Anantharamu.
4. FROM the documents it is seen Sri Anantharamu was one of the applicants for allotment of sites. On his application site bearing No. 6304 was allotted in his favour. But since the Muzarai Department claimed title to the said site, the said Anantharamu requested the OP to allot an alternative site. On his request a file was build up. The original files relating to the Complainant and Sri Anantharamu are produced before us at the time of the arguments. The files were also produced before the District Forum. Before the District Forum, the OP has examined two witnesses by name Sri Mohanraj and Sri Pandurangappa as its witnesses. In the file relating to Sri Anantharamu, it is seen that the Commissioner of the OP had directed the office to ascertain whether site bearing No. 780 has been allotted to any other person and submit a Report as per Paragraph 72 of the Note Sheet in the file. Though the said site was already allotted in favour of the Complainant, the officials of the OP put up a note stating that from the records it is seen that site No. 780 has not been allotted to any person. Note to this effect is at Para 74 of the Note Sheet dated 19. 4. 2005. In all probability, relying upon the note of the officials, the Commissioner took a decision to allot site bearing No. 780 to Sri Anantharamu. If the officials of the OP had not misled the Commissioner, the Commissioner in all probability would not have taken the said decision. No doubt, Sri Anantharamu was one of the applicants who was eligible for allotment of site. He was earlier allotted site bearing No. 6304 and since the Muzarai Department claimed title to the said site, Sri Anantharamu was entitled to get an alternative site, but not by depriving the allotment of site in favour of another person. Sri Anantharamu could have been allotted a site which has not been allotted to any other person.
From the file relating to the Complainant, at paragraph 52 of the note sheet, it is seen that the order of allotment of site bearing No. 780 has not been served on the complainant and it has been served on some other person. When the OP itself accepts in the note sheet that the order of allotment has been served on other person other than the complainant, the OP could not have taken up the contention that the order of allotment has been served on the complainant and despite the same he did not pay the sital value. From the records, it is also seen that some notices were said to have been despatched from the office of the OP to the address of the complainant. Sri Mohanraj who was examined as one of the witnesses on behalf of the OP has clearly stated in his evidence that whenever a notice is issued to a person the same will be mentioned in the Note Sheet and if the notice is returned un-served that would also be mentioned in the Note Sheet. But, in the Note Sheet in the file relating to the complainant nothing has been mentioned about the service of order of allotment or notices on the Complainant nor there is a mention regarding non-service of the same on the complainant. The original order of allotment is available in the file. On the reverse of the order somebody has signed. We compared the said signature with the admitted signature of the Complainant available in the records. On comparison, we find that the signature found on the reverse of the order of allotment is not that of the complainant. All these events clearly show that the complainant was totally kept in dark and he was not served with the order of allotment or the notices and, consequently, the complainant was not in a position to pay the balance amount to get the Lease-cum-Sale Deed executed in his favour.
When the complainant came to know of the cancellation of allotment of site even without notice to him, he requested the OP through his letter dated 20. 4. 2005 to permit him to pay the remaining amount. In that letter he has also stated that the officials of the OP have made a wrong statement in the office records that he has paid a sum of Rs. 40,000. The said fact is mentioned in the office records only to show that the complainant had the knowledge of the allotment, even though he has not paid any amount other than the Initial Deposit. The fact that the complainant has not paid any amount other than the Initial Deposit is admitted by the OP and the same has been mentioned in the Office Note. The OP had issued Notification dated 6. 5. 2006 calling upon all those persons who have not been served with the orders of allotment of sites to produce the necessary documents and to pay the remaining amount in. order to get the Lease-cum-Sale Deed executed in their favour. That Notification was published in the Local Newspaper in its Issue dated 6. 5. 2006. On the very same day, the Complainant had requested the OP to permit him to pay the remaining amount in order to get the Lease -cum-Sale Deed executed in his favour. But the OP did not take any action. When the OP itself had given an option to all those persons who were not served with the order of allotment to pay the balance amount in order to get the Lease -cum- Sale Deed executed, there was no reason for the OP to allot the site which was allotted in favour of the complainant, in favour of Sri Anantharamu, even prior to the issuance of the paper publication. All these facts conclusively prove that the officials of the OP have played a fraud on the complainant not only to deprive him of the site but also to allot the said site in favour of the person of their choice. Since Sri Anantharamu is not a party to these proceedings, we do not want to upset the allotment of site in his favour.
5. TAKING all these facts into consideration, the District Forum has passed a very well considered order and directed the OP to allot an alternative site in favour of the Complainant. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. HENCE, we pass the following Order:
(1) The Appeal is dismissed. (2) The OP is directed to pay Rs. 12,500 to the Complainant towards costs of these proceedings. (3) The OP has deposited a sum of Rs. 12,500 in this Appeal before this Commission. If the Complainant files a Memo for payment, Office is directed to pay the said amount to the Complainant, if a Memo is filed by the Complainant to that effect
Before parting with this case, we would like to impress upon the Authorities that if the Development Authorities constituted under a Statute were to act arbitrarily as has been done in this case, people will lose faith in them. The Chairpersons and Commissioners heading the Development Authorities and their officials are expected to discharge their duties strictly in accordance with law to achieve the object for which the Development Authorities are constituted. The Chairpersons and Commissioners heading these Development Authorities shall take suitable action against erring officials. We hope the Government will impress upon all Development Authorities to act fairly in the matter of allotment of sites so that the public will have confidence in them.
Office is directed to send a copy this Order to the Chief Secretary to Government to issue suitable directions to all Development Authorities in this regard. Appeal dismissed.
