CENTRAL GOVT. SERVICES COOP. LAND And GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY vs CHAIRMAN, D.D.A.

THIS complaint has been filed by the Central Government Services Cooperative Group Housing Society, Vikas Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi against Delhi Development Authority. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant society was allotted 21.44 acres of land @ 54/- per sq. meters by the respondent - DDA on 22.1.75. The complainant society made a payment of Rs. 46,69,632/- towards the cost of the said land to the DDA during the period 1.7.74 to 30.10.77. It was alleged that although the complainant society made the full payment of the cost of land the DDA did not give the possession of the land to the society in time handed possession of the land was actually given on 7.10.78. During this period the amount paid by the complainant society remained with the DDA and the DDA had not given any interest on the amount to the complainant society. The complainant society has filed this complaint asking for the payment of Rs. 7,72,374.80 towards interest calculated @ 7% p.a. as relief.

THE respondent DDA has denied all the allegations. THEy further raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by limitation. THEy, however, admitted about the allotment and possession of the land measuring 21.44 acres. THE date of possession of the land being 7.10.78 was also not denied. In support of their contention Sh. M.S. Chawla, the President of the complainant society submitted an affidavit wherein he verified about the allotment of land, payment of cost of Rs. 46,69,632/- and other relevant facts.

On behalf of the respondent DDA an affidavit by way of evidence was submitted by Sh. N. Balachandran, Director (CL). In their written statement and the affidavit submitted by the respondent it was further alleged that the complainant society was liable to pay a sum of rupees 20,822/- towards the cost of land which has been demanded from society vide letters dated 16.10.88 and 11.4.88 on record. While submitting reply to the interrogatories Sh. S.C. Sareen, Director (CL) who subsequently took the charge of the department from Sh. N. Balachandran, a different version to the above claim was given. In this reply which was in the shape of affidavit Sh. Sareen has sworn and stated that the letter for the recovery of Rs. 20,882.72 towards the balance cost of the land as was mentioned in the written statement of the respondent was issued under wrong impression that one instalment for the amount of Rs. 5,000/- was not deposited. He has further explained that this has happened because no copy of the cash receipt was submitted by the complainant society in the office of the answering respondent. He has also stated that a further amount of Rs. 15,000/- was shown recoverable from the complainant due to wrong calculation made by the Accounts Wing of the respondent DDA. In this affidavit Director (CL) has also submitted that in the present case there was no specific provision for the payment of interest on the deposits in case the possession of land was delayed by the answering respondent.

WE have gone through the record carefully and heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. It was an admitted fact on record that the possession of the land measuring 21.44 acres was given to the complainant society on 7.10.78. The present complaint has been filed on 13.12.90. This complaint was therefore hopelessly time barred and in this regard we are bound by the observations of the National Commission in cases M/s Oswal Fine Arts v. H.M.T. Madras reported as I (1991) CPJ 330 (NC) and M/s Stereo Craft v. Monotype India Ltd. reported as I (1991) CPJ 111 (NC). The result is that the complaint is rejected on the ground of this preliminary objection raised by the answering respondent. The additional claim of Rs. 20,822.72 which was made by the respondent DDA does not exist in view of the affidavit dated 25.6.91 wherein Sh. Sareen, the Director (CL) DDA has stated that this demand was made erroneously on account of wrong calculation made by the relevant Wing of the Authority. In view of the above discussed factual position we reject this claim being stale and belated. No order as to costs. Claim rejected.