Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Meera Sanger

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .......APPELLANT(S)

Versus

SUBHASH CHANDRA SOOD .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Ghaziabad Development Authority, the appellant

herein ('the Authority', for short) floated a housing

scheme in Govindpuram. In the year 1989, the respondent

applied for a 200 sq. mt. plot. The Authority issued a

reservation letter. There were some delay in payment of

some instalments. According to the respondent, all

instalments have been paid with interest.

2. The respondent filed a complaint before the District

Forum in the year 1993 seeking (i) delivery of the plot,

(ii) award of interest at 18% per annum on the deposited

amount, and (iii) compensation for the delay. The

Authority resisted the petition contending that in view of

a stay order issued by the High Court in writ petitions

filed by the land owners, the Authority could not deliver

the plot. The District Forum, by order dated 31.7.1997,

directed delivery of possession of plot within three months

and also awarded interest at 18% per annum on the amount ......2.

- 2 -

deposited. The appeal filed by the Authority was dismissed

by the State Commission on 10.3.2000. The revision filed

by the appellant was dismissed by a non-speaking order

dated 14.3.2002 which is impugned in this appeal. The

order merely states that in view of the decision in Haryana

Urban Development Authority Vs. Darsh Kumar (Revision

Petition No. 1197 of 1998), where the Commission had upheld

the interest at 18% per annum, the revision petition was

being dismissed. The various contentions urged by the

appellant were not considered. In particular, the

contention that the plot could not be delivered for reasons

beyond its control and that there was no deficiency in

service and the further contention that where delivery of

plot is directed, payment of interest at 18% per annum was

not warranted. As the order is a non-speaking order which

does not deal with the issues raised, in the normal course,

we would have set aside the order and remitted the matter

to the National Commission.

3. But at this stage, the learned counsel for the

respondent, however, stated that that would involve further

delay and the respondent who has been waiting for the plot

ever since 1989, should not be denied the benefit of the

plot any further. He requested that the matter may be heard and disposed of finally by this Court. In the special

.......3.

- 3 -

circumstances, we propose to consider the matter on merits.

4. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the

Authority submitted that an alternative Plot No.E-3 in

Swarn Jayanti Puram Scheme is allotted to the respondent on

21.6.2000, but respondent did not respond. She also

submitted that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of

this case, the plot will even now be offered to the

respondent. She stated that instead of charging the

present allotment rate of Rs.7800/- per sq. mt. the

Authority will make the allotment at Rs.2300/- per sq.mt.

which was the rate prevailing in 2000-2001 when the said

Scheme was launched. We are of the view that the offer

made is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The delay

in offering the possession of the plot earlier in 1989 was

for reasons beyond the control of the Authority in view of

the stay order which was operating against the Authority.

The plot that is now allotted is in a new layout. The

Authority has to charge only the initial allotment rate of

that new layout.

5. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set

aside the order of the National Commission and modify the

order of the State Commission by directing the appellant

........4.

- 4 -

Authority to allot the plot No.E-3, measuring 200 sq. mts.,

in the Swarn Jayanti Puram Scheme at the rate of Rs.2300/-

per sq. mts. and deliver the same within three months

against payment of balance amount due. The respondent will

be entitled to adjustment of the amounts already paid by

him with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon

towards the price of the plot. It is needless to say

that in the circumstances the question of Authority

paying interest on the price deposited at the rate of 18%

per annum does not arise.

.........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; .........................J. November 19, 2009. ( K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8516 OF 2002

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .......APPELLANT(S)

Versus

MEERA SANGER .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Ghaziabad Development Authority, the appellant

herein ('the Authority', for short) launched a housing

scheme at Sanjay Nagar. On the application of the

respondent, the Authority issued a reservation letter on

30.6.1992. Allotment letter was issued on 5.11.1993 showing

the final cost of the plot as Rs.1,08,339/-. The

respondent did not pay the lumpsum amount payable before

delivery of possession and as on 24.4.1996, the total

amount due was Rs.33,716/- towards the plot, Rs.13,000/-

towards chowkidar charges and Rs.18,713/- towards interest.

As the payment was not made, the plot could not be

delivered.

2. However, the respondent filed a complaint before the

District Forum in the year 1998 and the District Forum

directed the appellant to deliver possession of the plot

within two months and to pay interest at 18% per annum on

the amount deposited from 1.1.1993 till the date of .....2.

- 2 -

possession, and also pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation with a

further direction, on failure to comply, the Authority

should pay interest at 21% per annum. The District Forum

also stated that if any amount was due by the allottee, the

Authority can adjust the same from the interest payable to

the allottee. Even though, the appellant was aggrieved by

the said order, in compliance of the said order it

executed the sale deed in favour of the allottee on

29.5.1999 with a condition that the balance amount should

be paid by the allottee. The possession of the flat was

delivered on 16.7.1999.

3. The appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of by

the State Commission by merely reducing the default

interest rate from 21% to 18% per annum by order dated

5.3.2001. The revision filed by the appellant was disposed

of by National Commission by a non-speaking order dated

24.3.2002 disposing of the petition in the light of its

decision in Darsh Kumar upholding the interest rate at 18%

per annum. Various contentions urged by the appellant were

not considered by the National Commission.

4. In this case, the non delivery was on account of non

payment of the amount to be deposited before delivery of ...3.

- 3 -

possession. It is not in dispute that the possession of the

flat has now been delivered and sale deed also been

executed, even when dues had not been paid.

5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the

respondent was not entitled to any interest or damages.

[See Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank,

(2007) 6 SCC 711 and HUDA Vs. Raja Ram, (2009) 2 SCALE

164].

6. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part and set

aside the order of the District Forum, as affirmed by the

State Commission and the National Commission and delete

the award of interest and award of compensation of

Rs.2,000/-. If any amount is still outstanding from the

respondent, it is open to the Authority to take such action

as is available to them in accordance with law for recovery

of the same.

.........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; .........................J. November 19, 2009. ( K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6050 OF 2002

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .......APPELLANT(S)

Versus

K.K. SHARMA ......RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Ghaziabad Development Authority, the appellant

herein ('the Authority', for short) floated a housing

scheme in Govindpuram named 'Akansha II'. The Authority

issued a reservation letter on 26.2.1989 to the respondent.

The respondent deposited Rs.21,510/- as registration

amount. On 29.12.1993, respondent demanded refund on the

ground that the house allotted was not worth living. The

Authority refunded the registration amount deposited by the

respondent on 20.5.1994 after deducting Rs.5,000/- towards

cancellation charges. It did not pay any interest. On a

complaint filed by the respondent, the District Forum, by

order dated 9.9.1997, directed refund of the deducted

amount of Rs.5,000/- and also directed payment of interest

on the deposited amount at 18% per annum from the date of

deposit till 20.5.1994 alongwith Rs.2,000/- as costs. The

appellant filed an appeal before the State Commission in

October 1997. However, as there was no stay, in compliance

of the District Forum order, the Authority deposited a sum ......2.

- 2 -

of Rs.5,000/- as also Rs.79,499/- towards interest.

Thereafter, the State Commission affirmed the order

upholding the interest at 18% per annum. Revision filed by

the appellant has been dismissed by a non-speaking order

following its earlier decision in Darsh Kumar.

2. The order of the National Commission in Darsh Kumar

has been modified by this Court in HUDA Vs. Darsh Kumar,

(2005) 9 SCC 449. In several other decisions, this court

has reduced the interest payable to 9% to 10% per annum. On

the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that award

of interest at 18% was not warranted and interest at 10%

per annum would be just and reasonable.

3. We, accordingly, allow this appeal in part and

reduce the interest from 18% to 10% per annum. In all other

respects, the order of the District Forum is affirmed.

Consequently, the Authority shall be entitled to recover

back the excess interest paid to the respondent.

.........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; .........................J. November 19, 2009. ( K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN )