MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Gurudeesh Kumar Doda

THIS case revolves around the question whether the petitioner, Moradabad Development Authority is liable to return the alleged excess amount in the sum of Rs.20,000/ - etc. to the complainant/respondent. We have seen the brochure which clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that 200 sq.mt. of the plot is worth Rs.85,000/ -. At Note No.1, it was specifically stated that these were the estimated rates. Subsequently, the rate was enhanced and a sum of Rs.1,05,000/ - was charged from the complainant. The OP/petitioner escalated the price on 08.09.1990, of the above registered land upto Rs.20,000/ - i.e. Rs.100/ - per sq.mt. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. During the pendency of the case, the matter was settled and the following order, dated 15.11.1991, was passed : - ''''Parties present. Sh. Subhash, Ld. Advocate of opposite party said that M.D.A. will allot the land to complainant on old conditions and old rates before March, 1992, on the basis of this complainant do not want to proceed in the complaint. Therefore complaint dismissed ''''.

It may also be mentioned that the petitioner was allotted reserved land under ''Handicapped Category ''.

ON 15.11.1992, as per the Undertaking given by the District Forum, the complainant was allotted plot No. D -104, vide lottery draw. The complainant was assured that he would be given the said land D -104 in the near future and directed him to deposit Rs.50,000/ - upto 30.07.1992. The complainant requested the petitioner to allow to deposit Rs.25,000/ - but the said letter was not replied by petitioner/OP, arbitrarily. However, the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/ - on 21.07.1992. On 01.12.1992, the complainant requested the authority for handing over the possession of the allotted land and to know about the time duration for depositing the balance amount in one installment as per compromise. The authority did not respond. From December, 1992 to November, 1993, the complainant continuously visited and sent letters to the office for getting the possession of the allotted land but the authority did not act. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 07.12.1993 that the said land came under the ceiling land and instead, they offered to give him another land bearing No.D -98. The complainant accepted the same. However, the possession was not given despite many requests. On 07.02.1994, the complainant was offered land bearing No.D -98 at Rs.1,05,000/ -. He was asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs.69,500/ -. The authority also demanded Rs.2,201/ - towards interest @ 15% p.a. They also demanded Rs.10,500/ - shown as lease rent for 80 years @ 10%. The complainant was called upon to deposit the amount till 10.02.1994. The complainant was forced to deposit Rs.1,05,000/ - on 08.02.1994 and the authority gave the physical possession of the said premises on 19.02.1994.

THE District Forum in the second complaint directed the authority to repay back the escalated money taken by the authority against the compromise and the money deposited against lease rent and it was also directed to pay Rs.100/ - towards litigation expenses.

APPEAL was filed before the State Commission by the authority, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the compromise order passed by the District Forum in Case No. 900 of 1990, does not explain what are the old rates. He has also invited our attention towards the fact that the complainant had given an undertaking that he would not file a case against them and the matter between them stood settled. The said letter has been placed on record. He contended that the subsequent notification by the Moradabad Development Authority clearly goes to show that the rate was enhanced. He also argued that the Brochure gave only the estimated rate. The actual rate of the premises comes to Rs.1,05,000/ -.

WE are not able to locate any substance in these arguments. First of all, it is not understood, as to when the matter was settled before the District Forum, on 15.11.91 through the compromise, how a second complaint would lie? The second complaint filed on the same cause of action is not maintainable. The second complaint filed by the complainant should have been treated as an Execution Petition as is indicated by the State Commission. The second complaint was barred by principles of res judicata, but there lies no rub in treating the same as an Execution Petition.

SECONDLY , when the matter has been settled in the District Forum, the Moradabad Development Authority tried to defy the order of the forum. They enhanced the value in contravention of the order passed by the District Forum. They should have followed the directions of the District Forum out -rightly as it had attained finality, qua, both the parties. In First Appeal No.744 of 2006, titled DCM Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Saini and Ors., this Commission refused to recall the order dismissing the appeal as withdrawn, vide order dated 19.10.2012. Aggrieved by that order, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4081 of 2013, was preferred before the Hon ''ble Supreme Court by the Appellant, wherein, vide order dated 01.02.2013, it was held, as under: - ''''After arguing the case for a while and realizing that the Court is not inclined to entertain the special leave petition, learned senior counsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the special leave petition. The request of the senior learned counsel is accepted and the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn ''''.

Similar ratio will apply in this case as well.

MORADABAD Development Authority has no respect for law and the directions given by the District Forum have not been followed. Is it above law? They bordered contempt of court for not following the order of the District Forum dated 15.11.1991.

IT is surprising to note the way the Moradabad Development Authority deals with a Handicapped person. Moreover, this revision petition is pending in this Commission since the year 2006. This is the oldest revision petition pending in this Commission. It could not be taken earlier, because, particularly, the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent, took adjournments after adjournments, for a period of about eight years. For a meager sum of Rs.20,000/ - plus interest, the Moradabad Development Authority, must have spent enough amount by contesting this case, which the learned counsel for the petitioner displayed hesitance to disclose. Petitioner ''s actions are neither open nor above board. The Petitioner has handled the situation in a very maladroit way. It has also exposed the sloth and callousness of their administration. The Revision petition is frivolous and has consumed the valuable time of this Commission, for about eight years. Therefore, we dismiss the revision petition by imposing costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/ -, which be paid by the petitioner, to the respondent/complainant through demand draft in his name directly, within 90 days, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.