SATENDRA SHARMA vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.5.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 893/1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a plot in Govindpuram Housing Scheme on 30.11.1988 measuring 90 sq. ft. THE cost of the plot was indicated as Rs. 50,000/- for which the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,810/- on 30.10.1988 and Rs. 50,000/- on 15.4.1989. THE possession was to be given in two years'' time. THE complainant has alleged that the possession was not given within the period of two years. Hence he has claimed interest on the deposited amount. The opposite party has alleged that the possession could not be delivered on account of stay order of the Hon''ble High Court from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed the opposite party, Ghaziabad Development authority to pay interest at the rate of 18% per Annum on the deposited amount from 17.12.1993 till the date of possession alongwith compensation of Rs. 2,000/-.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, complainant Sri Satendra Sharma has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the interest awarded by the learned District Forum with effect from 17.12.1993 is wrong and the interest should have been awarded from the date of deposit. The learned Counsel has also argued the stay order granted by the Hon''ble High Court which remained in operation from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993 was a conditional order. Hence the interest should have been awarded from the date of deposit. In the present case the complainant had applied for a 90 sq. ft. plot in Govindpuram Scheme. According to learned Counsel when the amount has already been deposited by the end of 1988 the possession should have been delivered by November, 1990 as promised by Ghaziabad Development Authority. According to the learned Counsel the stay order was passed much after expiry of two years from the date of deposit. The stay order which was granted by the Hon''ble High Court has been reproduced in para 4 of the grounds of appeal. It has been mentioned that in the Writ Petition No. 10931/1991, Satya Prakash v. State of U.P., the stay order was passed in the following language: "Meanwhile the respondent (G.D.A.) shall not raise any construction on the land in question, if the constructions have not already commenced."

This stay order related to the constructions. It clearly goes to show that if the Ghaziabad Development Authority has not already started constructions, then no construction should be started on the land in question. It goes to show that if the Ghaziabad Development Authority had not started any construction over the land, then the stay order shall be applicable, but if the construction has been started, then no stay order shall be applicable. In the present case the complainant was not allotted any house. In the bunch cases decided by this Commission, it has'' been held that the construction had already started by the Ghaziabad Development Authority before passing of this stay order. Therefore, the stay order passed by the Hon''ble High Court did not apply to those houses, the construction of which was started, but the case of the plot is entirely different. No construction was to be made on the plot and only development work was to be made on these plots. Therefore, the stay order was applicable in its full force to the plots. As the complainant had been allotted plot, therefore, the stay order was operative from the very beginning and continued till it was vacated. The learned District Forum by pasing the order has taken this question into consideration and has not allowed any interest till the stay order remained in force.

NOW the question remains for consideration is that according to the complainant, the amount was deposited on 30th November, 1988. Even according to the plaint allegations, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 15 4.1989. When this amount was deposited on this date, the possession has to be delivered after making the development work which will also take some time. The stay order was passed on 24.4.1991 after two years of the last deposit. The Commission has taken a view in several cases that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has to be given two years'' time in completing the development work. This much time could easily be taken by a Development Authority for laying sewer lines, electricity, roads, water lines and other development work. Therefore, by the time the development work could be over, the Hon''ble High Court had passed this order staying any work over the plots in dispute. Therefore, the learned District Forum wasperfectly justified in granting interest with effect from 17.12.1993 as the stay order expired on 16.12.1993. Thus we find that this appeal has no force is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance be made within a period of months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed. _______________