Case nº Revision Petition No. 4433 Of 2013, (Against the Order dated 04/06/2007 in Appeal No. 550/2007 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 17, 2014 (case 1. Boddu Venkateswarlu and Anr. 2. Kodumuru Srinivasa Rao Vs 1. Khammam Municipality and Anr. 2. The Director, Municipal Adminstration)

Judge:For Appellant: Mr. K.L. Sastry, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
President:Mr. V.K. Jain, Presiding Member and Mr. Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Defense:Consumer Law
Resolution Date:July 17, 2014
Issuing Organization:National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

V.K. Jain, J. (Oral)

R.P. No.4433 OF 2013

  1. In a public auction held by the respondent, Khammam Municipality, a plot of land measuring 533.33 sq. yards situated in Grain Market area of Khammam was put on auction. Complainant No.2 gave the highest bid for purchase of the aforesaid plot, his bid being a sum of Rs.1,27,999.20/-. He paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards earnest money. He approached the municipality with a request to receive the balance amount and register the sale deed in his favour. Later, complainant No.1 was adopted by the parents of complainant No.2. Alleging deficiency on the part of the respondents, Khammam Municipality and the Director, Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, a complaint was filed before the Khammam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum) seeking registration of the aforesaid plot in favour of the complainant alongwith damages amounting to Rs.10,000/-.

  2. The complaint was resisted by the municipality inter alia on the ground that they had requested Government of Andhra Pradesh to approve the aforesaid transaction of auction of the plot. However, no permission from the Government was received. It was also stated in the reply that without permission of the Government required under Rule 4 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Properties Rules 1967, the municipality is not competent to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants. It was also stated in the reply that the balance amount had not been deposited by the complainants.

  3. The District Forum vide its order dated 17-02-2004 directed the municipality to obtain permission from the concerned Government authority within two months and execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants.

  4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the Khammam Municipality filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short, the State Commission). Vide impugned order dated 04-06-2007, the State Commission allowed the appeal to the extent that the direction of the District Forum to the municipality to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant was set aside. However, the municipality was directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- which it had received from the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with...

To continue reading

Request your trial