STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/24/1324 KRISHNA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS THROUGH SANKAR MANCHANI PRESENT ADDRESS - 88 NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR M.P. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus DEEPAK KHAMPARIYA PRESENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO.1089 SANJEVANI NAGAR GARAHA JABALPUR ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

KRISHNA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS THROUGH SANKAR MANCHANI FOR THE RESPONDENT:

DEEPAK KHAMPARIYA DATED: 19/09/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1324 OF 2024 (Arising out of order dated 02.05.2024 passed in C.C.No.1036/2022 by District Commission, Jabalpur-2)

M/S SHRI KRISHNA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHANKAR MANCHHANI, S/O LATE MOHANDAS MANCHHANI, R/O 2685, OPPOSITE RAILWAY STADIUM, BESIDE STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, SOUTH CIVIL LINES, JABALPUR (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus DEEPAK KHAMPARIYA, S/O SHRI TULSIDAS KHAMPARIYA, R/O HOUSE NO.1089, SANJEEVNI NAGAR, GARHA, JABALPUR (M.P.) … RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on 19.09.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-builder is directed against the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur-2 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.1036/2022, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been partly allowed.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant for residential purpose had booked a 2 BHK flat no.427 at fourth floor in 'Muskan Gold' a residential cum shopping complex of the opposite party/appellant to be constructed in Scheme no.14 of the Jabalpur Development Authority and for the same the parties entered into an agreement on 30.11.2011 to purchase the flat for Rs.19,50,000/-. Out of total sale consideration of Rs.19,50,000/- the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 06.10.2011 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.11.2011 via cheque totaling Rs.4,00,000/-. It is alleged by the complainant that the oppostie party had to give possession of the flat after executing registered sale deed within 36 to 48 months but the opposite party failed to give possession of the flat till date. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service approached the District Commission seeking relief either to give possession of the agreed flat or to refund the amount deposited with interest @ 18% p.a.

3. The opposite party/appellant-builder in its reply before the District Commission submitted that on 18.03.2011 the opposite party entered into an agreement with the Jabalpur Development Authority (JDA) to construct multi-storied building on JDA's land admeasuring 16,650 sq.ft, according to which the complainant paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the opposite party-builder. As per agreement, the opposite party had right to construct the different units as per sanctioned map and to sell the same. The opposite party had obtained the said land from JDA on lease. As per agreement, the opposite party paid 25% of the amount to JDA and as per agreement got the right to construct multi-storied building on the said land for which the opposite party got prepared lay out and map and only on that basis, the opposite party entered into an agreement with the complainant to purchase the flat.

4. It is further submitted that despite repeated requests, the JDA did not give possession of the land and NOC. Later on it was informed that most of the land was registered in the name of the government under ceiling act. Thereafter on 23.12.2013 the JDA cancelled the allotment of land. Thereafter litigations are still pending