LT. COL. J.S. OBEROI vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD.

COMPLAINANT Lt. Col. J.S. Oberoi booked an industrial plot bearing No. 270 in the Park City with the opposite party No. 1, Technology Parks Ltd., and an agreement dated 6.1.89 was signed and executed by both the parties. According to the agreement the complainant was to make payment of 40% of the total price at the time of booking and the remaining amount was to be paid in interest free monthly instalments of Rs. 782/-. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs. 26,917.20 being the 40% of the total price, at the time of booking. The total consideration of the plot was Rs. 62,565.75. The said project was monitored by the Uttar Pradesh Government and was to be implemented with great speed and it was understood that the entire project would come up within a period of 3 to 4 years.. According to the complainant till date there is practically no development in the area. The opposite parties in their communications with the complainant falsely represented that they have got necessary permission from the Collector of Distt. Magistrate of Ghaziabad for change of use of land from the agriculture to residential, commercial or industrial and have obtained approval from the Uttar Pradesh Government for developing 200 acres of land in Village Tusiana for Electronic City, Technology Park, Park City Project. The project was to be developed as integrated complex comprising of industrial and residential area alongwith Electronic Institutional Park. However, the complainant was surprised when an advertisement appeared in the newspapers wherein the District Magistrates of Bulandshahar and Ghaziabad published that the various schemes including the Park City Scheme belonging to Technology Parks are unauthorised, as there is no proper sanction from the Uttar Pradesh Government with regard to the change of land use and there was violation of provision under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite parties, he got the reply that the Uttar Pradesh Government was to monitor the entire scheme and so far the development plans, which have been submitted, have not been cleared by the Uttar Pradesh Government. Though no development work has taken place at the site, the opposite parties had been continuously demanding payment from the complainant and so far he had paid the total amount of Rs. 62,562.20. The opposite parties are also demanding sewerage charges. The opposite parties have even not been able to get the lay out plan sanctioned. The opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 are guilty of making false statement, misrepresentation and misappropriating the funds collected from the consumers. After having collected huge sums of money from booking of the plots, the opposite party No. 1 has transferred the entire project to Sh. Tejvinder Singh, Managing Director of Chiranjit Tower who promised to dp the speedy development of the area. Four months have passe since the said transfer but still there is no development in the area. Thus according to the complainant there has been deficiency in the rendering of services by the opposite parties. The complainant therefore, prays that the amount paid with interest at the rate of 24% per annum till date, should be refunded by the opposite parties. Compensation amounting to Rs. 5.5 lacs for mental harassment, expenses for running round etc. has also been prayed for.

THE opposite parties contested the complaint. THEy averred that the opposite party No. 1 Technology Parks Ltd. was incorporated in March, 1985 with the main object to set up the Electronic City/Technology Park. Lay out of the proposed (including residential complex) as integrated one was submitted to the Uttar Pradesh Government. THE Government wrote a letter that it was desired that the Electronic City/ Technological Parks be set up in Village Tusiana, Tehsil Dadri. THE Industries Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide letter dated 29.7.85 approved the project in principal. Vide letter dated 18.12.85, the Electronics Department of Uttar Pradesh State Government informed opposite party No. 1 that the State Government has approved the said project vide its order dated 16.5.85. THE Uttar Pradesh Government vide its letter dated 19.7.86 granted permission u/Section 154(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindar Land Reforms Act of 1950 for using 200 acres for the purposes of establishing the project. THE said permission was however, subject to the following two conditions: (a) That the Technology Parks/Electronics City project will be over-seen by a Monitoring Committee to be set-up by the Uttar Pradesh State Government chaired by the Principal Secretary (Industry) and Member, Secretary (Finance); Secretary Revenue, and Secretary In-charge Co-ordination/Special Secretary, Electronics. THE said Committee would endeavour to ensure that the Industrial area would be developed first and thereafter the residential area would be developed. (b) An Officer of the U.P. Electronic Corporation would be nominated on the Board of Directors of respondent namely M/s. Technology Parks Ltd., as nominee of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

In the said integrated project the development activities and creation of an infrastructure for the Industrial Park and the Residential Park is not only inter-related but common and therefore the development of the same could only be concurrent. The opposite parties invested a sum of about Rs. 3 crores for purchasing aforesaid 200 acres of land. The project contemplated that the 200 acres will be divided into an Industrial Park of 90 acres, the Business Park of 10 acres. Institutional Park of 10 acres and a Residential Park of 90 acres. The opposite party No. 1 also received permission from the District Authorities to construct the Industrial/Residential building on the land. Pursuant thereto in September, 1988 opposite party No. 1 offered to sell to purchasers industrial/residential/commercial/Institutional plots/plots of land in the integrated comples inter-alia on the following terms and conditions: (i) 40% of the sale price at the time of application towards earnest money, (ii) Balance 60% of the sale price of the plot in equal monthly instalments in three years. (iii) Sewerage charges at the rate of 40 per sq. yard on demand in addition to the sale price.

It was also a condition in the agreement that all the internal development work (mentioned in para 8) shall be completed within three years from the date of the agreement excepting in case of force may use and contingencies beyond the control of the management. Opposite party No. 1 commenced the booking of the plots in residential complex called "Park City" around 21.9.88 and closed the booking on31.10.88 due to good response. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 proceeded to complete the work of allotment and to carry on its development activities. However, opposite party No. 1, on 21.11.88, received a show cause notice issued by the Uttar Pradesh State Government alleging therein the opposite party No. 1 has not complied with the conditions of approvals and to show cause why the permission granted be not withdrawn. The opposite party gave reply on 5.12.88 submitting therein that the conditions imposed in fact had to be complied with by the Uttar Pradesh Government namely the nomination of representative of Uttar Pradesh Electronics Corporation Ltd., on its Board and the setting up of a Monitoring Committee with which terms the Uttar Pradesh Government had failed to comply. The Uttar Pradesh State Government without assigning any valid reason and without giving personal hearing to opposite party No. 1 which was asked for, cancelled the permission earlier granted, vide order dated 20.4.89. The opposite party No. 1 filed a civil writ petition before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad and on 12.5.89, the High Court stayed the operation of the cancellation order dated 20.4.89. Vide order dated 15.4.91 the High Court upheld the permission granted to the opposite party No. 1 and issued a direction to the Government of Uttar Pradesh for the appointment of Monitoring Committee and a nominee Director towards fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the permission dated 19.7.85. Pursuant to the orders of the High Court, a Monitoring Committee was set up on 17.6.91 and a nominee of the Uttar Pradesh Electronic Corporation Ltd. was appointed on the Board of Directors of opposite party No. 1. The Monitoring Committee was further directed by the High Court to submit its report after giving the opposite party No. 1 a hearing. The Monitoring Committee vide its report dated 12.11.91, allowed the opposite party to proceed with the project and recorded, inter alia, that the balance plots left in the residential park/ area be preferably given to the industrial entrepreneurs and undertaking to this effect was to be taken from opposite party No. 1. The undertaking was given by the opposite party No. 1 to the Uttar Pradesh Government. The High Court vide its order dated 9.12.91 finally disposed of the aforesaid writ petition recording in its order that the opposite party Company has now been allowed to develop its Electronic City/Technology Park in accordance with the decision of the Monitoring Committee.

MEANWHILE Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Corporation on 26.4.89 issued a Press advertisement warning the general public that it proposed to acquire land in 13 villages on both sides at Noida on the Surajpur-Kasna road. Village Tusiana where opposite party No. 1 was to set up the integrated park was not listed in the notification. On 29.4.89 an advertisement was issued by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad in the various newspapers purporting to inform the public that the project of opposite party No. 1 alongwith certain other colonies coming up on the Noida Dadri Road, were unauthorised. Opposite party No. 1 took exception to the said advertisement and called upon the District Magistrate to rectify his mistake. In the meanwhile opposite No. 1 received a letter dated 3.3.89 from the Ministry of Industries, Department of Company Affairs, giving notice to submit its report to ascertain whether the opposite party No. 1 had indulged in any unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36-A(i) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It appears that the Principal Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Industries Department, Lucknow as well as another complainant alleged that the opposite party No. 1 had indulged in unfair trade practices and without the approval of the Monitoring Committee and/or in contravention of other conditions, had indulged in inducing prospective buyers to make investment for allotment of plots in the Park City. After making detailed investigation the Director General of Investigation and Registration exonerated the opposite party No. 1 from all the charges made in complaints and came to the conclusion that the Company had not indulged in any unfair trade practice. It was further observed in the said report that the delay in the development/completion of the project was not on account of any default on the part of opposite party No. 1, and that it had all the necessary and requisite permission for the development of the said project and development of the residential component of the project, was justifiable and permissible and in fact formed part of the complete integrated complex. Meanwhile an authority known as Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, (GNIDA) was set up vide notification dated 28.1.91 for the planned development of 109 villages of the area which included the area acquired and covered by the project of the opposite party No. 1 GNIDA initiated litigation challenging the permission granted in favour of opposite party No. 1 and its development work. The said litigation culminated in a compromise deed dated 9.1.92 between the GNIDA and opposite party No. 1, whereby the opposite party was permitted to continue the construction as follows: (a) Research and Development Centre; (b) Software Development Centre; (c) Central Tool Room; (d) Institute of higher learning/Corporate Retreat Centre/Model; (e) World Trade Centre; (f) Road, Overhead, Water tanks. Electricity Supply, Sewerage etc.

CLAUSE 4 of the agreement further provided that other construction would not be commenced until the opposite party No. 1 and its allottees had their maps and plans approved by GNIDA. All the developments contemplated in CLAUSE (f) stated above would necessarily include the development work of the Park City and the maps furnished by the opposite party No. 1 which was mentioned in the said clause clearly identified the residential area vis-a-vis the industrial area of the integrated complex schemed It was further alleged that a clear reading of the facts enumerated above clearly showed that delay in the implementation of the project was clearly beyond the control and unnecessarily litigation was thrust upon opposite party No. 1 by the various authorities. High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 35589 of 1993 directed GNIDA vide orders dated 26.11.93 to pass appropriate order on the plans submitted by the opposite party No. 1 within 15 days without prejudice to the opposite party No. 1''s claim, in view of the above referred compromise. It may be mentioned here that the opposite party No. 1 does not deny the agreement executed with the complainant and receipt of Rs. 62,562.20 from him. However, it is pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 shall be fulfilling its commitment of allotting plot to the respective buyers. It was denied that no development had taken place in the area of that there had been deficiency in performing service.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

THE complainant had booked the Industrial Plot with the opposite party No. 1 and an agreement was executed between the parties on 6.1.89. Opposite party No. 1 was to set up a Electronic City/Technology Park including a Residential Complex as a integrated complex. THE said project was to be implemented with great speed and according to the complainant the entire project was to come up within a period of 3 to 4 years. According to the complainant he had paid Rs. 26,917.20 ps. being the 40% of the total price at the time of booking. THE balance amount of 60% sale price of the plot was to be paid in 36 monthly instalments which the complainant has since paid. THE grievance of the complainant is that upto this date there is practically no development in the area and possession of the allotted plot bearing No. 270 in Park City has not been delivered to him so far. THE defence of the opposite party No. 1 is that it was forced to go in litigation with the Uttar Pradesh Government on account of un-called for action of the State Government. We are of the opinion that the respondents themselves invited the actions complained of. Vide letter dated 29.7.85 (Annexure ''B'') Uttar Pradesh Government agreed in principal to grant opposite party No. 1 "Land Use Clearance" for about 200 acres of land. It was also mentioned in that letter that initially the Scientific/Production/Commercial area would be developed and after it had been almost fully developed, the consturction of the Residential Division could be taken up. It was further mentioned in that letter that for the interim period the Residential Accommodation available at Noida especially in the Colonies being set up by the Army/Navy and Air Force could be used by the entrepreneurs. Thus, this letter shows that the Uttar Pradesh Government agreed to the project proposed by opposite party No. 1 on the understanding that firstly the non residential protion would be developed and even the residential portion was supposed to be available for the entrepreneurs.

Vide letter dated 18.12.95 (Annexure ''D''), Uttar Pradesh Government approved the project for infrastructural Development of a modern specialised Industrial estate for high technology viz. Electronic, Telecommunication, Computers etc. and cleared the "land use" for this purpose.

VIDE letter dated 19.7.86 (Annexure ''E''), the State Government asked the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad to grant permission to opposite party to purchase 200 acres of land and also to grant permission u/Section 154(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The conditions which were to be imposed under Section 154(2) have already been noticed above while narrating the facts of the case. After the necessary permissions were granted by the various authorities, opposite party No. 1 purchased about 200 acres of land in Village Tusiana. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 started bookings in Park City. The complainant was allotted Industrial Plot in Park City. It may be mentioned here that the Park City was one of the components of the total project, lay-out of which was to be got approved by opposite party No. 1 from the Monitoring Committee.

IT appears that from the beginning opposite party No. 1 started acting dishonestly. In the letter of allotment and the agreement executed between the parties, it was not mentioned that in which component of the integrated project, the Industrial plot booked by the complainant was located. However, receipt dated 27.9.88 (Annexure III) shows that it was a provisional receipt on a proforma of Residential Plots in Park City. IT was also mentioned in that receipt that the Industrial Plot was situated in Park City. However, Park City was not meant for the Industrial activities of the project of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 commenced booking of plots with the Residential Complex called "Park City" for its project on or around 21.9.88 and closed booking on 31.10.88. Thus the Park City was residential complex of the project. However, the complainant was allotted Industrial Plot in the Residential Complex. The booking of the plots in Park City was against the conditions upon which the "and Use clearance" was granted to opposite party No. 1. As noticed above "Land Use" Clearance" of about 200 acres in Village Tusiana, was granted for setting up an Electronic City/Technology'' Parks on the conditions that above project would be scrutinised by the Monitoring Committee, chaired by the Principal Secretary, Industrial Department, and that it would endeavour to ensure that the Industrial Area is developed first and thereafter the Residential Area. Without approval of the aforesaid Monitoring Committee and observing other conditions on which "Land Use Clearance" was allowed, opposite party No. 1 strated booking of plots in the residential township and its membership was thrown upon to all and sundry who may have nothing to do with the Electronic City. Hence, the Uttar Pradesh Government had no other option but to issue a show notice dated 21.11.88 (Annexure ''G'') to opposite party No. 1 for violation of conditions imposed while granting Land Use Clearance Opposite party No. 1 replied the said show cause notice vide (Annexure ''H''). A strange plea was taken to the effect that the permission to acquire the land was not subject to any condition precedent to be performed by opposite party No. 1 (vide Para No. 33 of the reply). This is factually incorrect. As noticed earlier vide letter dated 19.7.86 (Annexure ''E'') Uttar Pradesh Government had directed the District Magistrate to impose the conditions noticed above while granting permission to opposite party No. 1 to acquire about 200 acres of land for the project. Plea has been taken by opposite parties that the Uttar Pradesh Government had not appointed the Monitoring Committee. There is no letter on the file to show that opposite party No. 1 asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to appoint a Monitoring Committee. Secondly, the Industrial Component of the project was to be developed first and then the Residential Component. The Residential Component of the project was sought to be meant for the entrepreneurs.

THE Uttar Pradesh Government did not find the reply given by opposite party No. 1 as satisfactory and therefore, vide letter dated 20.4.89, Uttar Pradesh Government wrote to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad to cancel the permission granted to opposite party No. 1 to purchase the land for Electronic City and Technology Parks. Before the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad could take action on that letter, opposite party No. 1 filed a civil writ petition in High Court of judicature at Allahabad and obtained an order staying operation of the order 20.4.89,

THE Uttar Pradesh Government also made complaint to MRTP Commission about the unfair trade practices of opposite party No. 1. Before the Director General of Investigation and Registration, the stand of opposite party was to the effect that operation of the order dated 20.4.89 had been stayed by the High Court and therefore the permission already granted remained in force. THErefore, no further action was taken against opposite party No. 1. In the meantime District Magistrate, Ghaziabad also issued Press notice that the Park City was an unauthorised Colony. Under the Orders of the High Court Uttar Pradesh Government appointed a Monitoring Committee and fresh lay out plan was submitted by opposite party No. 1 before that Committee. Certain delcisions were taken by the Monitoring Committee but it is not necessary to go into them. Suffice it to say that the delay in the completion of the project has been due to unauthorised actions of the opposite party and therefore they cannot be heard to say that the litigation was forged upon them. It has already been mentioned above that according to the complainant no development has taken place in the area and possession of the allotted place has not been delivered to him. In such circumstances, the opposite parties are definitely guilty of deficiency in service. The complainant is waiting since 1989 for allotment of an Industrial Plot. He cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for the plot.

In view of the above observation, we order the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 62,562.20 ps. to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from respective dates of deposits till payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment etc. The complainant will also be entitled to the costs of the proceedings which are quantified at Rs. 5,000-. Complaint allowed with costs.