MUDA Treated Retd Defence Personnel With 'Scant' Respect: Karnataka High Court Directs Body To Execute Sale Deed For Allotted Land

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the State Consumer Commission and directed Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to allot a site by executing necessary conveyance and deliver possession to a retired defence personnel.A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the petition filed by LT. GEN (Retd) BNBM Prasad and said “The State and its instrumentalities should learned to show deference to the Defense Personnel who guard our country unfazed by enormous difficulties.” It added “The MUDA has treated with scant respect & regard a Defense Personnel of the kind who has put a long & spotless service of three decades in guarding the frontiers of the nation. The encomia earned by him at the hands of the Central Government & the State Government failed to impress the MUDA officials...A Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-MUDA to execute & register a sale deed in favour of petitioner and put him in peaceable possession of the site in question or an alternative site of equal dimension & value, within eight weeks.”The authority had in 2001 allotted a 60x40 house site for a concessional sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- under ExServicemen Category to the petitioner. He had paid the entire sale consideration, despite this MUDA did not come forward to execute and register a sale deed. It then issued an endorsement dated 05.07.2014 stating that petitioner was in due of a sum of Rs.21,930 and that there is no provision for accepting the belated payment in the Extant Rules and therefore his prayer for execution of sale deed was negatived.The petitioner moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum which allowed his petition and directed execution of sale deed and in default, MUDA was directed to pay Rs.500/- for the delay of each day. In appeal the State Consumer Forum set aside the order of the district consumer forum. Following which the petitioner moved the High Court. FindingsRejecting MUDA's contention that the petitioner should approach the National Commission for review of the order passed instead of approaching the high court, the court said “Review u/s.51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not efficacious nor can be treated as an alternate remedy. The very terminology of the section shows its limited scope for interference at the hands of the Forum whose order is put in challenge here.” It added “The Act provides for only one single appeal from the orders of District Consumer Forum and thus the second appeal does not lie.” The court noted that the petitioner had paid the entire money and MUDA did accept the same. It said “It was open to the MUDA to return the money saying that delayed payment is inadmissible. That course it did not undertake.” As regards serving of notice by MUDA the court said “It never reached the petitioner who was since transferred to other border of the country. No efforts were made to serve the notice by substituted mode. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Defense Personnel have to go wherever they are deployed regard being to their nature of duty. This had happened in the case of the petitioner too and therefore non-service of notice cannot be counted against him.” Stating that full payment of sale price is vouched by the documents and it is not that if there was delay, interest cannot be levied or delay cannot be condoned when no lapse is attributable to the allottee, the court said:“The State Forum has not kept all these things in view while making the impugned order. Simply, it has quoted one single rule as if it is a draconian legislation, when it has several elbow joints and the relief granted by the District Forum could not have been snatched from the hands of the petitioner.” It added “The State Forum failed to see a separate provision namely Sec.56 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 which provides for the receipt of fine amounts that go to funds of the Authority. Of course, it is in connection with the fines realized from prosecution. But that provision coupled with the conspicuous absence of any other provision prohibiting receipt of the delayed payment, grants credence to the contention of the petitioner that if there was delayed payment, interest could have been levied.” Upholding the direction issued by the District Forum on MUDA to make payment of Rs.500 for delay of each day in executing the sale deed it said “The allotment was made way back in February 2001; entire allotment price is paid; no justification is shown for raising another demand for Rs.21,930/-; added, the notice of demand was not served on the petitioner by ascertaining his whereabouts; it is not that petitioner is a vagabond, but a high ranking Army official. He could not have been compelled to wage this long legal battle to get a house site of the kind.” Accordingly it allowed the petition and directed MUDA to pay to the petitioner all that amount that has accrued due in terms of order of the...

MUDA Treated Retd Defence Personnel With 'Scant' Respect: Karnataka High Court Directs Body To Execute Sale Deed For Allotted Land

Mustafa Plumber

Tags