GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Neeta

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.12.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 459/1993.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a plot of 162 sq. mts. in Pratap Vihar Scheme in 1986. She was declared a successful allottee and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as registration amount and another sum of Rs. 3,500/- as reservation amount with the opposite party. By letter dated 15.6.1986 the complainant was told that the plot shall be allotted within a period of two years but no plot has been allotted till the filing of the complaint in the year 1993. It is further alleged that in February, 1990 a letter was issued by the appellant to the complainant informing her that the scheme has been changed and according to other scheme the price of the plot will have to be paid in instalments alongwith interest. In the payment scheme-cum-allotment letter, the size of the plot was reduced to 83.64 sq. mts. According to the complainant the area of the plot cannot be reduced and no interest can be charged by the appellant, Ghaziabad Development Authority. Several times complainant tried to contact the appellant at his office and also sent letters but no reply was received. It is prayed that the complainant be given a plot of area of 162 sq. mts. for a sum of Rs. 34,830/- alongwith interest. She has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental torture and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as loss suffered for non-allotment of the plot. Other reliefs which the Forum deems necessary were also claimed. The case of the opposite party is that initially a plot of 162 sq. mts. was allotted in the year 1986 costing Rs. 34,830/- of which the possession was to be given in two years'' time. As the possession of the acquired property was not given by cultivators, who were in possession of the property and they filed a writ petition in the Hon''ble High Court, plot could not be delivered. This writ petition was decided against Ghaziabad Development Authority and the acquisition of the land was quashed. Thus in this way only possession of part of the property was given to the Ghaziabad Development Authority and as such the scheme had to be amended and the area of plot was reduced in order to accommodate other persons. A fresh letter of allotment dated 5.2.1990 was issued to the allottees and informed them that the cost of 83.64 sq. mts. of land which has been allotted to them was priced at Rs. 17,983/-. Alongwith this letter a payment schedule was also sent. The appellant has the right to reduce the size of the plot. Thereafter by agreement dated 5.2.1990 this fact was agreed upon between the parties. Hence the complainant cannot complain about the payment of interest on the instalments. It is alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ghaziabad Development Authority.

The learned District Forum, after considering the facts of the case, held that the opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum which has to be paid within a period of one month on the deposited amount of registration, reservation, instalments from 30.11.1993 till the date of possession. This interest will be calculated on the entire amount deposited upto 30.11.1993. The complainant was directed to pay the amount of instalments and interest within the time.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused evidence on record.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is entitled to reduce the size of the plot as the possession of the cultivated land, which was acquired was not given to Ghaziabad Development Authority and acquisition proceedings of the part of the land was quashed by Hon''ble High Court. In these circumstances the area of the plot was reduced. This fact has not been challenged by the complainant. Therefore, the appellant was justified in reducing the area of the plot in order to accommodate all the other allottees also, who were also allotted plots before the acquisition was quashed. If the complainant did not want a smaller plot, he could have refused to take it and should have withdrawn from the scheme and the amount would have been refunded to the complainant alongwith interest from the date of deposit, but as the complainant conceded to the lesser area, hence he cannot now complain about it. As far as payment of interest is concerned, the complainant is also liable to pay interest on the instalments. Had the entire amount been deposited in one lumpsum, then naturally not interest would have been charged from him. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the interest of Rs. 5,571/-, lease rent of Rs. 1,799/- and road cutting charges of Rs. 2,000/- have not been paid by the complainant. Therefore, the possession could not be delivered to him. On the other hand learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite party was not in a position to hand over possession of the plot as the same were not in a developed condition and no development work was done by the appellant there. According to the learned Counsel if the development work is done the complainant is prepared to pay the entire amount due to the Authority.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of the Commission to certain photographs which were taken of the place where these plots are situated. They were taken on 27.7.1998 and a bare perusal of the same goes to show that no development work has been done and the land is lying in an undeveloped condition. These facts have not been contradicted by the Development Authority by filing another photo showing that the development work is complete. If development work is not completed, how possession could be delivered by the authority is not clear. Therefore, the complainant was justified in saying that no development work has been done. Therefore he did not deposit the amount.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that after the decision of the learned District Forum, an opportunity was given to the opposite party for depositing the amount. As we have already seen in the earlier part of the judgment that the development work was not complete, the question of cancellation of the allotment does not arise. The appellant has wrongly cancelled the allotment of the plot allotted to the complainant. Thus the Ghaziabad Development Authority has to first develop the plot and then possession has to be delivered by it. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that in the brochure there is no mention of payment of Rs. 2,000/- as road cutting charges. Thus this road cutting charges cannot be charged by Ghaziabad Development Authority. Moreover, there is no cause for charging these amounts because the entire pipeline, sewer line and fresh water etc. are laid before the development work is complete and the roads are built. Therefore the complainant is right in not paying this amount as the Development Authority was insisting on the payment of this amount also. Therefore, there was justification for the complainant for not depositing the amount. The learned District Forum has considered each and every aspect of the case and has rightly arrived at the decision of granting relief to the complainant. Thus the complainant will deposit the entire amount due against him with the appellant and will also pay other charges except road cutting charges as demanded by the appellant without payment of any interest on the principal amount. The rate of interest awarded by the District Forum is reasonable and the same has been granted by the National Commission also. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall deliver possession of the allotted plot of amended area to the complainant after completing development work within a period of two months from the date of deposit of the amount by the complainant. The complainant will deposit the entire amount due to be paid in accordance with the judgment within the same period. The appellant shall inform the amount which is to be paid by the complainant to it within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this order or information of this judgment. Thereafter the complainant will deposit the amount within the next one month from the date of receipt of information from the Development Authority. The complainant shall get Rs. 1,500/- as cost of this proceeding. Let a copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.