JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The complainants/respondents are the members of the petitioner Society.  They made payment to the petitioner Society in the years 2006 and 2007 for allotment of residential sites in a project namely Brahmananda Sagra in Ilvala village Mysore.  Their grievance is that despite collecting payment from them way back in the years 2006 and 2007 no allotment of any residential site was made to them.  The complainants, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints seeking refund of the amount which they had paid to the petitioner Society along-with compensation etc.

2.      The complaints were resisted by the Society which admitted the payment received from the complainant for allotment of sites in Brahmananda Sagra.  It was inter alia stated in the written version that the society had acquired land in Ilvala village and Hobli for developing the residential sites and had got the layout approved but, in the year 2016 Government of Karnataka notified some land for industrial zone and, therefore, the Developers approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka seeking an order notifying the land as residential.  It was further stated in the written version that because of acquisition, notification, de-notification, re-notification and re-denotification, etc., it took long time to get the revenue record transferred in the name of the Developers.  It was further stated that the land acquired by the Developers for the said layout in Ilvala village had been included in the industrial category in the comprehensive development plan of MUDA.  It was also stated that the Developers had filed Writ Petitions which are pending before the  Hon’ble High Court.  The Society, therefore, issued a notice in the year 2013 informing that because of delay in forming the layout of Brahmananda Sagra it had started formation of another layout namely Kuvempu Sagar layout and it would allot the sites in Kuvempu Sagar layout instead of Brahmananda Sagra layout.  It was also stated in the written version that the petitioner was ready to allot the site to the complainant.

3.      The District Forum allowed the consumer complaints and directed refund of the amount received by the petitioner from the complainants along-with interest @ 10% p.a. with nominal compensation and nominal cost of litigation.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner Society approached the concerned State Commission by way of separat