<p class="title">The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has pulled up the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for not returning the promised stamp duty and registration fee to a person after allotting him a disputed site. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The forum also asked the BDA to pay ex-serviceman Gobardhan Singh Rs 92,000 towards stamp duty and registration fee besides Rs 10,000 towards litigation cost incurred by him. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum headed by president T Shobha Devi lambasted the BDA for behaving in a negligent manner despite many representations.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Singh decided to settle in Bengaluru and applied for a BDA site. The BDA allotted him a 60X40 ft site in Banashankari 6th Stage, 4th 'B' Block, and executed a registered sale deed in his favour in 2003. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Subsequently, the BDA cancelled the site allotment following a litigation. Again, it allotted an alternative site in the same layout as per a high court order in 2005.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The BDA made Singh pay the stamp duty and registration fee again for the new site and promised to refund the registration and stamp duty paid for the cancelled site. It, however, failed to keep the promise despite repeated requests. After making Singh run from pillar to post for five years, it gave an endorsement in 2009 saying there was no provision under the Act to refund the amount.</p>.<p class="bodytext">When its decision was challenged before the forum, the BDA continued to insist that it cannot reimburse the registration fee and stamp duty.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The forum observed, "The opposite party (BDA) stating that there is no provision in the Act to refund the registration amount is not sustainable. Is there any provision to allot a site to the complainant which is under litigation? It is the duty of the BDA to verify and allot the site to the complainant. Being a responsible authority, (the) BDA should not act in a negligent manner."</p>.<p class="bodytext">The forum further observed that it pointed to dereliction of duty by the BDA and it is not bound to collect the registration fee and stamp duty from the complainant.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It directed the BDA to refund the stamp duty and registration fee of Rs 92,384 besides paying Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses to the complainant, and disposed of the complaint.</p>
<p class="title">The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has pulled up the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for not returning the promised stamp duty and registration fee to a person after allotting him a disputed site. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The forum also asked the BDA to pay ex-serviceman Gobardhan Singh Rs 92,000 towards stamp duty and registration fee besides Rs 10,000 towards litigation cost incurred by him. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum headed by president T Shobha Devi lambasted the BDA for behaving in a negligent manner despite many representations.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Singh decided to settle in Bengaluru and applied for a BDA site. The BDA allotted him a 60X40 ft site in Banashankari 6th Stage, 4th 'B' Block, and executed a registered sale deed in his favour in 2003. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Subsequently, the BDA cancelled the site allotment following a litigation. Again, it allotted an alternative site in the same layout as per a high court order in 2005.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The BDA made Singh pay the stamp duty and registration fee again for the new site and promised to refund the registration and stamp duty paid for the cancelled site. It, however, failed to keep the promise despite repeated requests. After making Singh run from pillar to post for five years, it gave an endorsement in 2009 saying there was no provision under the Act to refund the amount.</p>.<p class="bodytext">When its decision was challenged before the forum, the BDA continued to insist that it cannot reimburse the registration fee and stamp duty.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The forum observed, "The opposite party (BDA) stating that there is no provision in the Act to refund the registration amount is not sustainable. Is there any provision to allot a site to the complainant which is under litigation? It is the duty of the BDA to verify and allot the site to the complainant. Being a responsible authority, (the) BDA should not act in a negligent manner."</p>.<p class="bodytext">The forum further observed that it pointed to dereliction of duty by the BDA and it is not bound to collect the registration fee and stamp duty from the complainant.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It directed the BDA to refund the stamp duty and registration fee of Rs 92,384 besides paying Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses to the complainant, and disposed of the complaint.</p>