Bangalore Development Authority vs K. VITTAL RAO

THIS appeal by the BDA is directed against the order dated 11.9.1991 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 655/1990, on its file.

IT arises in this way : - The respondent was allotted Site No. 5AM/226 in HRBR Layout, measuring 30'' X 40'' by the appellant for Rs. 15,000/-. The respondent paid the said amount and got the lease-cum-sale agreement executed by spending Rs. 1,675/- towards stamp duty and registration fees. He was also given possession certificate. He paid every year Rs. 98.70 as land tax till 1989. When he went to the Site, he found that the said site was not in existence. Hence, the respondent requested the appellant to give him actual possession of the site allotted to him or to allot alternate site. In 1989, he was allotted Site No. 7AM/462 in the same layout for the same amount Hence, he filed a complaint before the District Forum for directing the appellant to allot him a site in a developed locality, for return of the expenses incurred by him and compensation. The appellant resisted the complaint by contending inter-alia that the alternate site was allotted to the appellant on his request; that all the civic amenities have been provided for the said area and that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.

The District Forum, directed the BDA to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/-, to repay the vacant land tax paid by the complainant and to bear the stamp duty for the execution of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement and registration fee in respect of the new site and pay costs of Rs. 500/-. Hence, this appeal by the BDA.

THE Respondent admitted before us that the new site has been allotted to him at the old rate. Hence, he is not entitled to any compensation as he has been compensated by allotting the site at the old rate. THE complainant is entitled to get back from the BDA the amounts spent by him for getting the lease-cum-sale agreement executed and registered and also return of the land tax paid by him for the old site as he had to spend that amount due to the negligence of the BDA in allotting a site which was not in existence. He has to bear the expenses of the execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement and registration fee in respect of the new site. The District Forum has not given any reason as to how the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant admits before us that he has not taken loan for the construction. So he has not suffered any loss. Hence, the order of the District Forum awarding compensation of Rs. 15,000/- cannot be sustained.

IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified by directing the BDA to pay Rs. 2,119.15 towards re-imbursement of the cost incurred by the complainant for getting the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement registered and payment of vacant land tax and costs of Rs. 500/- as ordered by the District Forum. Parties to bear their own costs in this appeal. The remaining portion of the order of the District Forum is set aside. Appeal partly allowed.