F.A. Nos. 1076, 1077 and 1078 of 2013. Case: A.P. Housing Board Vs Anupoju Lalitha Kumari. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | F.A. Nos. 1076, 1077 and 1078 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: D. Ranganath Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Vikkanti Narasimha Rao, Advocate |
| Judges | Gopala Krishna Tamada, J. (President) and R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 81 (AP) |
| Judgement Date | June 19, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member
-
The three appeals arise out of the respective orders of the District Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada on 24.7.2013 in CC Nos. 66, 67 and 68 of 2013. As the facts of all the three cases giving rise to the appeals are same, the appeals are disposed of by a common order. FA 1076/2013 is taken as lead case. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants allotted MIG Flat No. 69/F1 at APHB Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada to P. Rama Rao on hire purchase basis and he paid the down payment and entered into an agreement for sale for multistoried flats with the APHB Board on 4.10.1991. The appellants delivered possession of the "flats to him on 30.4.1992. The respondent entered into agreement of sale with the allottee P. Rama Rao on 6.7.2011 and the respondent paid the balance sale consideration. The respondent paid an amount of Rs. 32,678 to the appellants on 2.9.2011 for the purpose of transfer of title over the property. As the appellants failed to execute sale deed in her favour, the respondent filed the complaint seeking relief for the registration of the flat.
-
The appellants resisted the claim on the premise that the original allottee paid an amount of Rs. 1,26,288 and the respondent submitted application on 15.7.2011 stating that the allottee sold the flat to her through agreement dated 18.9.1991 and she requested for transfer of the title over the flat in her favour and she had submitted letter of indemnity bond, agreement of sale, General Power of Attorney, etc.
-
The Deputy Executive Engineer reported to the appellants that the respondent made unauthorized construction in the appurtenant land of MIG Block No. 69/1 and notice was issued to the respondent on 14.3.2013 for removal of the unauthorized construction. The appellants expressed their readiness to register the flat in favour of the respondent on removal of the unauthorized construction and on payment of the balance consideration. The respondent constructed compound wall around the flat and toilets on the rear side as also AC roof shed infront of the flat. As per the terms of the agreement the purchasers of the ground floor flats are precluded from using the land appurtenant to the flat except with the permission of the Chairman of APHB. The appurtenant land belongs to all the six allottees.
-
The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents Exs. A-1 to A-3 and on behalf of the appellants, the first appellant V. Nagarjuna, Executive Engineer filed his affidavit and got marked Exs. B-1 to B-4
-
The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellants had received the entire sale consideration from the respondent and they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial