Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer vs J.NATARAJAN

THE opposite party the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Board against whom an award has been passed is the appellant.

THE complainant was allotted a house of the Housing Board for a price of Rs. 8.800/-. This amount was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 64/- for 20 years. THE case of the complainant is that he has paid the entire amount and he has also paid the penal interest that was levied. He also paid scrutiny fees demanded for the Sale Deed. But the opposite parties wrote to him Ex. A2 letter dated 25.6.1992 stating that the complainant had to make a payment of Rs. 6.637/- being the total sum of Rs. 1,293/- as difference in costs, Rs. 3,129/- as difference in cost interest, a sum of Rs. 309/- as penal interest and also a sum of Rs. 1,340/- as water charges, Rs. 266/- as Siruvani Water connection charges and Rs. 300/- as water meter charges. According to the complainant these amounts he is not liable to pay. THE non-execution of the sale deed is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On these allegations the complaint was filed for directing the opposite parties to execute the sale deed and also pay compensation. The opposite party contends that the complainant is liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 6,637/- as stated in their letter Ex. A2, and unless that amount is paid the complainant cannot have a right to get the sale deed executed by the opposite parties. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence accepted the case of the complainant as correct. It, therefore, passed an award directing the opposite party to execute the sale deed as required by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation besides a sum of Rs. 400/-as costs of the proceedings.

NOW in the appeal on hearing both sides and also going Through the order of the District Forum and relevant records we find that there is no compelling reason to interfere with the said award passed by the District Forum. The District Forum has relied on Clause 17of the Lease-cumSale Agreement Ex. B2. As extracted by the District Forum the relevant portion of this clause reads thus : "Excepting the fixation of price with reference to the claim or compensation adjudicated or awarded by Courts finally and conclusively with regard to the lands acquired under the scheme, the lessor shall fix the price of the property after taking into consideration the development charges, cost of amenities and buildings etc., within a period of three years from the date of allotment and which price is subject only to a revision on account of excess compensation, if any, awarded by Courts for the lands as aforesaid."

NOW the allotment was on 3.4.1972. Therefore as per the said part of Clause 17 of the Lease-cumSale Agreement the final price of the property should have been fixed within 3 years from mat date. But it is only in Ex. A2 letter dated 25.6.1992 the complainant has been called upon to pay an additional sum of Rs. 6,637/- stating it to be the difference in cost etc. Therefore in view of the said Clause 17 it is not proper and legal on the part of the opposite party to demand any amount as difference in cost. As regards the water charges claimed also it is the case of the complainant that till 1984 he was paying the water charges to the opposite party but thereafter the supply of water has been taken over by me Kuniamuthur Town Panchayat and therefore it is not proper on the part of the opposite party to demand any water tax. Regarding this there no point has been raised in the grounds of appeal and it was not argued before us. Thus considering we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly me appeal is dismissed however without costs. Appeal dismissed with costs.