Dharamvir Singh S/O Sh. Khushal Singh vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

COMPLAINANT - Petitioner herein has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 10.09.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Revision no. 204/02 whereby the State Commission has allowed the Revision filed by the Respondent, quashed the orders dated 30.09.02 and 1.11.02 passed by the District Forum in execution proceedings and struck off the execution proceedings pending before the District Forum.

FACTS:- Complainant-Petitioner herein applied for a plot in Indira Puram Housing Plot Scheme No. 558 floated by the Respondent and was allotted a plot on 18.05.91. Petitioner paid the entire cost of the allotted plot including lease rent on 15.7.94. As per brochure of the Scheme, the physical possession of the plot was to be handed over within two years from the date of allotment or after deposit of the entire cost and lease rent but the Respondent failed to deliver the possession of the allotted plot within the stipulated period. It was alleged that there was no development work at the site and basic civic amenities were not provided. Moreover, Respondent demanded the chawkidara charges from the Petitioner without handing over the possession of the fully developed plot. Aggrieved by this, Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the Respondent to hand over the possession of the allotted plot with basic civic amenities, to pay interest @ 24% on the deposited amount of Rs.2,63,334/-; to quash the demand of Rs.4,800/- and 10% of the cost of the plot and to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs.

RESPONDENT, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaint, inter-alia, on the ground that the costs of the plot and time limit for handing over the possession mentioned in the brochure of the scheme were tentative; that the plot allotted to the Petitioner was fully developed; that the possession letter was issued to the Petitioner on 10.8.95 but he did not come forward to take possession of the allotted plot.

DISTRICT Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the Respondent had not developed the site. That the basic civic amenities were not provided and the allotted plot was not in habitable condition. That though the time limit of 2 years mentioned in the brochure of the scheme for handing over the possession was tentative but it cannot be extended for an indefinite period. District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent to hand over the possession of the allotted plot with all housing civic facilities/ amenities which are required in any general colony for the construction of the house and to live/for habitation within a period of three months from the date of passing of order failing which the Respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount till the date of handing over the possession. District Forum quashed the demand of chawkidara charges unless the Respondent completes the development in all aspect. Rs.2,000/- were awarded for mental agony and Rs.300/- as costs. The order of the District Forum attained finality as it was not challenged by the Respondent.

SINCE the possession of the allotted plot was not handed over to the Petitioner with all the basic facilities/amenities within the period of three months as directed by the District Forum, Petitioner initiated execution proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Respondent. In the execution proceeding, District Forum by order dated 30.09.02 directed the Vijaya Bank to deduct a sum of Rs.3,12,003/- from the account maintained by the Respondent with it and to deposit the said amount with the District Forum on or before 22.10.02. As the said order was not complied with, District Forum again by order dated 1.11.02 directed the Financial Controller of the Respondent GDA to deposit the said amount with the District Forum failing which the bank account will be seized for the said amount.

RESPONDENT, being aggrieved, preferred a revision before the State Commission against both the orders dated 30.09.02 and 1.11.02 passed by the District Forum in execution proceedings.

STATE Commission allowed the revision, quashed the orders dated 30.09.02 and 1.11.02 and struck off the execution proceedings pending before the District Forum by observing as under:- It is obvious that although he deposited the price of the excess land well in time, yet the freehold charges could not be deposited prior to the last date of the three months period. In other words, it may be clarified that freehold charges were paid on the last date of three months period. It implies that the concept of delivery of possession with all the formalities required in that context would be observed not only by one, but both the parties. To recapitulate, execution of the lease deed or, in the alternative, with the deposit of the freehold charges, execution of the sale deed was a must before handing over the possession to the allottee. The complainant could have insisted for execution of the lease deed without paying freehold charges soon after he had deposited the price of the additional land on Jan.3, 2000 but there is nothing on record to show that the complainant was willing or keen to have the lease deed executed. In that situation it has to be inferred that since he deposited freehold charges he was keen and eager to acquire full title of the plot by depositing the freehold charges. And, as observed above, the freehold charges were deposited on Feb.02, 2000 on the last date of the three months period referred to in the judgment of the District Forum from the date on which the said period had to be calculated. Further, it cannot be ascertained from the record or the pleadings of the opposite party with specificity as to when the stamp paper has been deposited by him. However, it is admitted to the opposite party that the sale deed has been executed on May 24, 2000, i.e. in less than 10 days of the expiry of the three months described in the judgment. Obviously the non-judicial stamp paper may have been deposited before the possession was handed over on May 8, 2000. Indeed there appears to be slight delay on the part of the Ghaziabad Development Authority in handing over the possession but since the execution of the sale deed with delay is attributable to the lapse on the part of the complainant the Ghaziabad Development Authority cannot be blamed all alone for the delay in the delivery of possession. If the deposit of the freehold charges had been made in the time there was no question of the G.D.A. being held responsible for the inordinate delay in inducting the complainant in possession of the plot. In fact, it is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the complainant himself. (Emphasis Supplied)

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission. District Forum by order dated 15.11.99 directed the Respondent to hand over the possession of the allotted plot with all housing civic facilities and amenities within the period of three months from the date of passing of order failing which the Respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount till the date of possession. In compliance of the order of the District Forum, Respondent wrote a letter on 18.12.99 asking the Petitioner to deposit a total sum of Rs.21,901/- as the price and Rs.2,190/- as lease rent of the surplus land attached to the plot allotted to him. Petitioner was also asked to submit non-judicial stamp papers of Rs.26,700/- plus Rs.50/- and take possession of the plot on 30.12.99 after completion of the formalities. However, Petitioner deposited the lease rent of Rs.24,091/- on 3.1.2000 and free hold charges amounting to Rs.4,838/- on 15.2.2000 only. Petitioner has also filed an affidavit before the Respondent with an undertaking that he shall not claim any interest and damages and will not lodge any claim whatsoever in pursuance to the order dated 15.11.99 passed by the District Forum. From the letter dated 18.12.99 sent by the Respondent to the Petitioner in compliance of the order of the District Forum, it is crystal clear that Respondent offered to the Petitioner to take possession of the plot on 30.12.99 subject to deposit of lease rent and free hold charges. But the Petitioner did not deposit the lease rent and free hold charges before 30.12.99. Free hold charges were deposited only on 15.2.2000 because of which Sale Deed could not be executed within the period of three months of passing of order by the District Forum(, i.e., by 15.02.2000) as directed by the District Forum. The sale deed was executed on 24.05.2000. Respondent cannot be held liable for the delay in executing the sale deed. State Commission has rightly observed that the delay was attributable to the Petitioner as well because he deposited the free hold charges on 15.02.2000 which happened to be the last date for compliance of the order of the District Forum. The orders passed by the District Forum in the execution proceedings were rightly set aside by the State Commission.

FOR the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.