BENGALURU: A resident of J P Nagar has won a legal battle against a real estate firm after three years. The firm had sold him a site in a layout but had suppressed the fact that it was a portion of land acquired by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB).
The civil court has now asked the developer to pay Rs 25.42 lakh along with 10 per cent interest to the purchaser Arun Desai, a resident of J P Nagar Phase II. The KIADB had acquired the site for Bosch India Pvt Ltd.
According to the judgment, Desai entered into an agreement with Sneha Developers on February 27, 2011 to purchase Site No. 12, measuring 40×60 ft, at a layout on outskirts of the city, for Rs 18 lakh. A sale deed was executed in favour of Desai on payment of Rs 18 lakh along with registration charges of Rs 1.22 lakh on November 19, 2011. However, on August 1, 2013, Desai was surprised to see a 15-foot wall erected by Bosch India Pvt Ltd around the layout, where he had purchased the site.
Desai then discovered that Sneha Developers had sold a site to him on land that had already been acquired by KIADB in favour of Bosch. Sneha Developers was aware of this fact and had, in fact, questioned the acquisition in High Court, the judge noted.
The same was dismissed by the High Court on November 9, 2011 with permission granted to the developer to submit a representation to the government.
Despite this, Sneha Developers suppressed the fact and induced Desai to purchase the site. Sneha Developers were gross defaulters for a sum of Rs 25.42 lakhs in spite of issuance of legal notices in March 2015 and May 2015 by Desai, the court observed.
YourManInIndia Views – by Mr. P. Sunder (CEO)
Going for a legal opinion from a competent lawyer ensures that apart from the title, any acquisition underway or planned is also thoroughly checked. In this case, if the land had already been acquired by KIADB it should have shown up in the EC if the purchaser had been alert. Most of the time, hapless buyers go by the documentation produced by the builders and trust it blindly, while refusing to go for an independent legal opinion citing costs. However, the far reaching effects and damage that a wrong decision can cause is much more catastrophic.
Courtsey: The New Indian Express | 25-January, 2016