MAYA SINGH vs CHAIRMAN, LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SMT. Maya Singh and her husband Sri Vinay Singh have filed this complaint with the prayer that penal interest saddled on the complainants at Rs. 1,11,273.13 and the subsequent demand note dated 26.6.1997 asking from the complainants Rs. 1,62,181/- be quashed and the opposite parties, Lucknow Development Authority (for short L.D.A.) be commanded to execute the sale deed and documents transferring proprietary rights upon the complainants. The complainants have also prayed for compensation for delayed possession of the house and also for changing the originally offered accommodation into the one subsequently occupied on being allotted through the letter of L.D.A. dated 8.4.1996.

WHEN the notice was issued, written statement, affidavits and evidence have been filed and the complaint has riped up for final disposal. Mr. G.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the complainants has been heard at length who has placed the entire record. Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned Counsel for the L.D.A. has also been heard at length. Now, the admitted position is that the complainant has entered into possession on House No. 5/428 in Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in place of earlier allotted house. Ever since the complainants entered into possession of House No. 5/428 noted above, they are enjoying proprietary rights without any deed in their favour. The record indicates that letters were issued requesting L.D.A. to execute a registered deed but instead, the demand of Rs. 1,62,181/- was slapped on the complainants.

Mr. Pramod Kumar has not been able to show anything on the record which may indicate that the allegations of the complainants that a sum of Rs. 6,92,700/- has already been paid by them into the coffers of the L.D.A., the last instalment of which was paid on 22.2.1995. But what has been contended by Mr. Pramod Kumar is somewhat different. He says that the last instalment was paid delayed by about eight months and, therefore, L.D.A. is entitled to charge penal interest on the entire amount deposited and this is how initially Rs. 1,11,000/- and odd was shown as penal interest which is included in the latest demand of Rs. 1,62,181/- called by the L.D.A. from the complainants. In reply Mr. Chauhan has indicated by the evidence on the record that the possession has been delayed by about a year after payments were made. As noted above, compensation has been claimed by the complainants on the deposited amount because of delayed possession having been obtained by them for the amount deposited with the L.D.A. However, suffice it to say that the delay on both sides can result in an equitable decision and that is that neither the complainants can get any compensation nor the L.D.A. should demand any penal interest or interest. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint succeeds in part and is disposed of with the following directions. (1) The payment already made by the complainants will be taken as sufficient and full discharge of the liability for the payments regarding House No. 5/428, Vikram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. (2) The demand of Rs. 1,62,181/- made by the L.D.A. from the complainants or for that matter any other demand concerning the allotment and possession of the said house in favour of the complainants are quashed and shall be deemed to have been quashed. (3) On payment of necessary charges for getting a deed in their favour, the complainants will take immediate steps alongwith certified copy of this order and Mr. Pramod Kumar will see that the L.D.A. registers the deed within one month after completion of the formalities. The parties will bear the cost in this complaint. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint partly allowed.