IN REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OFFICE, PATNA
( Complain case no -538/2019)
A.O case no 133/2019
Smt. Anamika ……… Complainant
Between
Shri Bhushan Kumar Singh & ors. ………. Respondent
SL.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. Rejoinder on behalf of Complainant to the complain
petition no -538/2019.
2. Annexure-1: Photocopy of sale deed in favour of Mrs.
Preeti Sahay through sale deed no 1666 dated 30.01.2016
3. Annexure-2: Photocopies of agreement and approval
letter of PRDA are Annexure -2 to this rejoinder.
17. Vakalatnama
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE REAL ESTATE
(REGULATION & DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016
Complaint No.: 538/2019
A.O case No.: 133/2019
IN THE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OFFICE, PATNA
Smt. Anamika --------------Complainant
Between
Shri Bhushan Kumar Singh -----------------Respondent
Reply to Rejoinder
Reply on behalf of complainant to the rejoinder filed by respondent
no-1.
I,Smt. Anamika wife of Sri Vijay Kumar, Resident of Village-Tehati,
Post-Silhourih, Police Station- Marhowrah , District- Saran
( Bihar) ,Presently Resident of Flat No-204,Manmohan
Palace,Akashvani Road, P.S-Shastri Nagar, Khajpura , Patna-800014,
do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follow:-
1.That I am complainant in this case and as such I am was
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case that the
rejoinder under reply filed by the Respondent no -1 is nothing but an
endeavour of the Respondent no-1 to evaded is responsibility /liability
which is supposed to discharge in terms of the agreement to sale deed
dated 09/10/2012 ( Annexure -1 to complain 538/2019 and A.O case
no 133/2019) as well as under the provision of RERA( here in after
referred to as the act 2016.)
2. That the main contention of the Respondent no -1 in this rejoinder
is that because a compromise was made between the parties in
Criminal Misc no 57911/2018 as such the claim of the complainant is
not maintainable. The said contention is completely misconceive and
erroneous as such it is fit to be rejected in view of the fact that in the
compromise as referred in the rejoinder , there is no discussion of the
fact that the complainant would be debar from making any claim
under the provision of the act and to pray for the relief as mention in
the complain .That it is an admitted position that that was a
registered agreement between the parties which has not been
cancelled till date and the same is still enforceable between the
parties.
3. That it is further respectfully submitted that an agreement to sale
was executed between the parties pursuant to which to be total
amount of Rs. 12,39,900/- (twelve lakh thirty nine thousand nine
hundred) was paid by the complainant to the Respondent no-1 but he
failed to execute sale deed in favour of complainant with ill motive an
one or other pretext . Where as he sold his flats to some other
buyers .The complainant has come to know the respondent no-1 has
executed sale deed in favour of Mrs. Preeti Sahay through sale deed
no 1666 dated 30.01.2016.
Photocopy of sale deed in favour of Mrs. Preeti Sahay through sale
deed no 1666 dated 30.01.2016 is Annexure -1 to this rejoinder.
4.That the second contention of the respondent no -1 to rejoinder in
that as he has returned 678000/- to the complainant in term of
compromise before Hon’ble High Court Patna as such the complainant
has no Wright to make any claim is fully misconceive and untenable
in view of following facts:-
A. There was an agreement between the Respondent no-1 and Builder
(Vision Land PVT Ltd.) as per which the construction of the apartment
in question was to be completed within 4 years from date of passing of
map by PRDA. The map was approved by PRDA as on
07/07/2010.Thus the apartment was to be completed up to July
2014.
Photocopies of agreement and approval letter of PRDA are Annexure -2
to this rejoinder.
B. The complainant enters in the agreement with the respondent no-1
vides agreement to sale deed 2012. As per which the flat was to be
handed over the to the complainant within 3 months of due date of
completion i.e. up to Oct. 2014 but unfortunately the respondent no -
1 failed to carry out his promise as made in the agreement which
render in liable to pay compensation in term of provision contending
section 17, 18 of this act.
C. The claim of the compensation for which the complainant is
entitled under the act cannot be denied by the Respondent no-1
taking shelter of compromise between the parties made in compromise
in the criminal case.
D. the entailment of the complainant under the act has never been
adjudicating before any authority.
E. The agreement to sale deed between the parties dated 09.102012
Annexure -1 to complain 538/2019 and A.O case no 133/2019) to
complain is still enforceable and has the same is still existences.
5. That in view of above aforesaid fact the contention raise in rejoinder
under reply are fit to be rejected and that replied as prayed for un the
complain are fit to be allowed.
6. That anything stated in the rejoinder centenary to the facts stated
in complain and prejudicial to the interest of the complainant is
hereby denied.
Verification
I ANAMIKA W/o VIJAY KUMAR of the complainant do hereby verify that
the contents of paragraphs ( 1 to 9) are true to my personal knowledge
and belief and that I have not suppressed any material fact( s).
Place:
Date:
