THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WP No.8691 of 2010 Between Suchir India Developers Private Limited and another v. P. Ajay Kumar and others THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.8691 of 2010 Judgment: ( Per Sri GM, J ) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 15-2-2010 in Consumer Case No.356 of 2009 passed by the 3rd respondent-District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad, as illegal, without authority of law and without jurisdiction. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are developing the lands into plots by paying necessary fees, layout charges to the various authorities and also constructing buildings at various places. It is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 became members for purchase of plots, admeasuring 373 square yards, after availing the discount on the plots costs for a consideration of Rs.11,28,258/-. After the payment of the said amount, the respondents 1 and 2 have issued legal notice to which the petitioners replied stating that still an amount of Rs.54,823/- is due apart from the registration charges and that the plot became 418 square yards instead of 373 square yards. That the respondents 1 and 2 insisted to register the plots of 373 square yards only instead of 418 square yards and they also filed CC 356 of 2009 before the 3rd respondent forum, which entertained the complaint filed by the respondents 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer case as the agreement between the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 is purely an agreement of sale of house site property. Relying on the decision reported in V. KAMALA v. A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ( 2010(3) ALT 483 (DB ) ) it is contended by the learned counsel that if the respondents 1 and 2 are aggrieved by the action of the petitioners, they can file appropriate suit for specific performance before the competent civil court. In V. KAMALA’s case (supra), complainant therein failed to establish any contract of service offered by landowners therein for consideration and therefore it was inter alia held by the Division Bench of this Court that the complainant therein cannot be a consumer of landowners to invoke the jurisdiction of State Commission against them on an agreement of sale entered with developer for sale of flats constructed by it. That case has no application to the facts of the present case. Inasmuch as the 3rd respondent-District Consumer Forum, at paragraph 6 of its order, inter alia held that the complainants have paid in all a sum of Rs.11,28,258/-, and the petitioners did not keep up the promise and therefore allowed the petition. The said impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is in fact appealable, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate forum by raising all the pleas including the plea of jurisdiction, in which event the same shall be considered and appropriate orders thereon be passed as per law. In the circumstances, the writ petition being meritless and is dismissed. No costs. GM, J GC, J kk/21-6-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WP NO.8691 OF 2010 21-6-2010