- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.17039 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.84, SUN SMILE, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, KUMARA PARK WEST, SERPENTINE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020 EMAIL ID: ntihousing@gmail.com REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. PRATAPACHAND RATHOD EMAIL ID NTIHOUSING@GMAIL.COM PH 8971382749 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VIDYA PAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAYANA TARA BG, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RAJESHWARI S INGLESHWAR MAJOR W/O SHIVANANDA S. INGLESHWAR, NO.97/2, BHIMA JYOTHI, HBCS LTD, KAMALANAGAR, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION OF SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21/03/2025 PASSED BY THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI IN REVISION PETITION NO.150/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A b)GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR FURTHER RELIEFS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND APPROPRIATE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This writ petition under Article-226 of Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (‘NCDRC’ for short) in Revision Petition No.150 of 2023, dated 21.03.2025, vide Annexure-A, where under the revision preferred by the respondent came to be disposed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 of, directing the petitioner herein to allot, register and deliver the possession of the alternative site measuring 60’ x 40’ (2,400 sq.ft. or 266.66 sq.yds.) at Bethangere Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural, at the respondent’s cost within two months from the date of the order and in the event the respondent declining or delaying to take the above said plot, the petitioner shall convey the same in writing to the OPs and the OPs shall, thereafter, refund the entire amount paid by the allottee / respondent along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of final payment, within a period of two months from the date of the respondents exercising the offer of refund, along with default clause of 12% per annum, if there is any delay broke down in compliance. 2. Brief outline of facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under: The petitioner society is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 having - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 registration number B/ARB-1/REGN/2556/72-73 dated 23.03.1973 and is formed with the objective of acquiring land and forming residential layout with sites to be allotted to its members after receipt of sital value from the members, subject to other conditions and subject to availability of sites. 3. The respondent is one among of the members of the petitioner society. The petitioner on 11.12.1986 was provisionally allotted a site measuring 40 x 60 being site No.202/24, at Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, NTI Layout 2nd Phase, Bangalore, as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. 4. Due to various litigation faced by the petitioner - society, there was delay of several years in handing over the land to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Officer, wherein the sites were formed. The petitioner - society finally came into possession of the land on 05.11.1992 and on 20.06.2002. The petitioner registered a sale deed in favour of the respondent for the allotted site stated supra. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 From the date of possession by the petitioner, there were several modifications caused by the Bengaluru Developmental Authority (‘BDA’ for short), to the layout plan proposed by the petitioner-society. One such change was made after the registration of sale deed in favour of the respondent, due to which certain allotted sites (including the respondents' allotted site) came to be designated as ‘civic amenities’ by the BDA. In turn, the owners of such lands lost their allotted sites. 5. The petitioner-society is striving hard for the betterment and interest of its members and vigorously tried to protect itself and its members against the litigations by the land-owners, encroachers, BDA, etc. Even today there are several writ petitions and writ appeals pending before this Court. 6. The petitioner – society with a sincere wish to serve its members fairly, offered the respondent another alternative site in Bethanagere Village, where the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 petitioner had purchased plots in a readymade layout. In view of the site which has been allotted in favour of the respondent supra turned to be Civic amenity site and no more available. Petitioner offered an alternative site at Bethangere to the respondent. However, the respondent has refused to avail the said opportunity. 7. This being the state of affairs, on 10.12.2010 the petitioner-society served with a notice issued by the respondent, demanding the delivery of the site allotted to her stated supra or an alternative site. 8. Thereafter the respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (‘District Forum’ for short) on 17.02.2011 in C.C.No.320 of 2011. The petitioner on receipt of notice filed the statement of objections. The District Forum after holding an enquiry, as contemplated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘CP Act’ for short) passed an order on 26.12.2015, whereby allowed the complaint, directing the petitioner to allot, register and deliver the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 possession of the alternate site at their own cost to the plaintiff within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Further, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony to the respondent and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer forum, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (‘State Commission’ for short) in Appeal No.351 of 2016. The State Commission after hearing both the parties set- aside the order passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint as premature, considering the fact that there are series of litigation pending against the petitioner in various forums including this Court. The respondent knocked the doors of NCDRC in Revision Petition No.150 of 2023, calling in question the order passed by State Commission. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 10. The petitioner appeared before the NCDRC through its counsel inter-alia has taken several contentions including the delay in filing the complaint, which has been negatived by the NCDRC. The NCDRC at paragraph no. 13 of the order has observed that the alternative site measuring 60 x 40’ at Bethanagere Village offered to the respondent has not been accepted by her and sought plots of equal value. 11. The NCDRC considering the fact that the site originally allotted to the respondent was not available and there is no scope to allot the said land, on the contention of the respondent that she will be satisfied if the site of equivalent value be allotted as well as considering the statement made by the petitioner that they would allot a site measuring 60x40’ at Bethangere Village, admitting deficiency in service, disposed of the revision petition by the impugned order stated supra. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 12. It is germane to mention that the impugned order came to be passed on the statement made by the petitioner before the NCDRC. The statement made at paragraph No.13, reads as follows: “OPs have fairly considered that the deficiency on their part and chose to offer a plot size 60 x 40’ (2,400 sq.ft. or 266.66 sq.yds.) at Bethangere Village. We consider the same as a reasonable approach to offset the inconvenience suffered by the complainant.” 13. It is this order of NCDRC is called in question before us in this petition. 14. Heard Smt. Vidya Pai, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Nayana Tara B.G., for the petitioner and perused the entire writ petition papers. 15. Smt. Vidya, taking us through the order passed by the NCDRC, submits that the directions passed for allotting alternative site measuring 60’ x 40’ (2,400 sq.ft. or 266.66 sq.yds.) at Bethangere Village has become impossible, in view of non-availability of site in the year - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 2023 itself and they are ready to refund the amount, with reasonable interest. Though at an earlier point of time they have made an offer of an alternate site to the respondent, as the respondent declined to accept the same and demanded for the possession of original site, which has been allotted way back in the year 1986. In view of passage of time and non-availability of site even at Bethanagere village, they are ready to refund the amount. The NCDRC has failed to consider the contentions of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, sought to allow the petition and the order passed by the NCDRC be quashed. 16. We have gone through the order passed by the NCDRC. On a short ground, the petition deserves to be dismissed, the reason being the order passed by NCDRC is on the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that they are ready to allot an alternative site measuring 60’ x 40’ (2,400 sq.ft. or 266.66 sq.yds.) at Bethangere Village. Considering the said submission, NCDRC passed an order directing the petitioner to allot and handover an - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 alternative site of equal size of 60’ x 40’ (2,400 sq.ft. or 266.66 sq.yds.) at Bethangere Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. 17. It is not the case of the petitioner that the submission is made by their learned counsel without there being any concurrence by the petitioner to that effect, as such, the submission/concession or admission is not binding on the petitioner, in view of settled position of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in HIMALAYAN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING VS BALWAN SINGH1 . 18.The petition filed before the NCDRC came to be allowed by the order impugned, directing the petitioner to allot alternative site in Bethangere village, on the submission of petitioner as referred at paragraph No.13. The petitioner is now estopped from taking a complete U-turn stating that in the year 2023 itself, the sites in the said Bethangere village are filled up and now no sites are available. This 1( 2015)7 SCC 373 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 submission has no legs to stand for the reason that the matter was heard in the year 2024, was reserved for orders in the month of September’2024 and the order came to be pronounced in the month of March’2025. If really there were no sites available in the year’2023, the petitioner should not have made any submission bringing the said fact to the notice of NCDRC to that effect. The submission made itself shows that the petitioner in order to save themselves from any adverse order being passed against them made such a submission. 19. On the submission of the petitioner, the NCDRC observed that, the petitioner fairly conceded that there is a deficiency on their part and came forward to allot an equal size measuring 60’ x 40’ (2,400 sq.ft. or 266.66 sq.yds.) at Bethangere Village, in favour of the respondent-complainant. Now a complete U-turn to the said submission stating that the sites are not available in the year 2023 cannot be countenanced. If really the sites are not available in the year 2023, the matter was heard - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 and reserved in September 2024 and after 6 months in March 2025, the order came to be pronounced, the petitioner should have brought the said aspect of the matter to the notice of the NCDRC. In that view of the matter, the impugned order by the NCDRC on the submission cannot be found fault with. 20. On the other hand, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be saddled with exemplary costs as it is not a bona-fide petition and further having conceded for allotment of alternate site before NCDRC could not have filed this writ petition. The petitioner society has not come before this court with clean hands. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is an order for refund, if the complainant/respondent is not willing to accept the land for return of sital value, we refrain ourselves from imposing any cost. 21. In these circumstances, the petition sans merits. However, if there is no site available in reality, it is - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24298-DB WP No. 17039 of 2025 for the petitioner to seek for modification of the order before the NCDRC and not by taking a challenge to the order, which is passed on the submission/concession by the petitioner. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29