P Ghei vs VICE CHAIRMAN GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

1.HEARD the learned Counsel for the Bhubaneswar Development Authority. None present for the complainant. We have carefully gone through the grounds of appeal and the impugned order. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the B.D.A. at length. Short question for decision is whether the District Forums order directing the B.D.A. to either allot a suitable plot of the same type to the complainant within any of the projects under the B.D.A. or in case of failure on the part of the B.D.A. to allot such plot to pay back the principal amount and interest as directed by the District Forum.

ADMITTEDLY the complainant deposited at the initial stage Rs. 4,500/ - and on the subsequent occasion Rs. 9,000/ - as per the requirement by the B.D.A. for allotment of a particular plot in question. And this was deposited on 8.6.1988 and 2.6.1990 respectively. Since the complainant was not allotted any plot he approached the District Forum. Before the District Forum the B.D.A. took the specific plea that because of some vigilance cases etc. the records of the B.D.A. were seized and ultimately the matter went up to High Court and in the High Court O.J.C. No. 5519/1991 was disposed of on 30.10.1992 after which the records were available to the B.D.A. Subsequently by their letter dated 20.8.1993 they asked the complainant to attend the lottery to be drawn on 27.8.1993 for allotment of a specific plot number. It is the case of the B.D.A. that the complainant did not attend the lottery and, therefore, the question of allotment of a house did not arise nor also he approached the B.D.A. with his original money receipt for refund of the amount which he had deposited earlier. Having heard the Counsel for the B.D.A. we are not satisfied with such a plea so advanced by the learned Counsel. It is clear that they asked the complainant to attend the lottery on 20.8.1993 but no averment in the written version is there whether at all the lottery was conducted on that date or that anybody else other than the complainant was allotted the plot on the basis of such lottery conducted on that day. There is conspicuous absence of such a material fact. Therefore, we are not in a position to appreciate the case of the B.D.A. the way it is advanced. Fact remains that the amount of the complainant has been retained by the B.D.A. since 1988 and it is legitimate to hold that in the present circumstances the complainant has not till now been allotted any plot nor do we find any possibility of the B.D.A. alloting any plot in the near future. Therefore, while confirming the order of the District Forum, we modify the same. The B.D.A. shall pay to the complainant the principal amount of Rs. 4,500/ - with 12% interest from 8.6.1988 till 2.6.1990 and after that interest shall be Rs. 9% per annum till payment. We do not find any lapses on the part of the complainant. When the money was with B.D.A. it should have offered the complainant for payment to him. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the BDA that no interest be paid on that amount. The amount should be paid within a period of three months from the date of receiving the copy of the order failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 18% from today. Appeal disposed of.