IMPORTANT POINT
Development charges do not form part of sale consideration.

D. Appa Rao, President —This is an appeal preferred by complainant No.4 against the order of the District Forum in C.C. No.1039/2007 dated 4.8.2008 directing him to pay Rs. 88,000 in order to get the original sale deed along with necessary link documents from the opposite party.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that complainants 1,3 and 4 purchased 220 sq. yds. each and complainant No.2 purchased two plots of 200 sq. yds. each at a cost of Rs. 1,500 sq. yd. comprising Rs. 1,300 sq. yds. towards cost of site; and Rs. 200 towards development work as per DTCP norm payable installments. Accordingly the installments were paid but when no developmental activities took place and after a several complaints, the opposite party agreed orally for registration of respective plots on payment of Rs. 1,400 comprising Rs. 1,300 towards site cost and Rs. 100 towards development charges assuring that it would develop and on so developing, the remaining balance of Rs. 100 could be paid. Sale deeds were executed but they were kept with them. Though they paid the amounts, no development was done nor was the sale deeds handed over. Therefore, they filed the complaint requesting for return of registered sale deeds along with link documents and for return of excess amounts paid towards development charges together with interest @ 12% p.a., and pay Rs. 15,000 to each complainant towards mental harassment and Rs. 20,000 for transportation charges in all Rs. 1,92,360.

3. The opposite party resisted the case. He alleged that agreements of sale dated 30.12.2005 and 3.2.2006 were executed by Managing Director of MI/s. Sai Chaitanya Housing (P) Ltd., who was not made a party and therefore the complaint be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. It alleged that amounts for laying of roads are collected tentatively based on existing market rates. The complainants have to borne out the cost and expenses. It had never collected any amount towards development of the land. The complainants had to pay the balance of sale consideration in installments on 7th of every month which they did not fulfill and therefore were not entitled to any relief’s. Some. of the members agreed for cancellation of the agreements, accordingly they had cancelled the agreements. They have promised to pay the balance of amounts after completion of registration. Believing their version, they got it registered in their names. Complainant No.4 had paid Rs. 1,70,000 whereas he falsely stated that he paid Rs. 2,80,000 towards cost of plot including development charges. In fact the application for conversion of agricultural land before the R.D.O. is pending. The complainants had approached the Forum with false facts. On 8.7.2007 they submitted the requisite form for registration of their plots. They declared that they will not have any claims against opposite parties or its nominees. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence of first complainant and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 while the opposite party filed affidavit evidence of its Vice- Chairman and filed Exs.B1 to B9.

5. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record among other things opined that the complainant No.4 had to pay Rs. 88,000 towards balance to get the original sale deed along with necessary link documents from the opposite party and therefore directed him to pay the same. The relief sought by complainants 1 to 3 is allowed.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant No.4 preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that he had paid the entire amount. In fact he paid (Rs. 88,000 wrongly mentioned in grounds of appeal) Rs. 12,000 in excess and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.

7. The respondent for reasons best known did not choose to contest the case.

8. During hearing of the appeal, the appellant had filed