Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Ved Prakash Aggarwal

practice under the MRTP Act. The GDA

entered appearance and denied the

allegations made in the complaint, inter

alia, alleging that no specific allotment

order was made by the GDA and, therefore,

cancellation of the same did not arise at

all. It was further stated by the GDA in

their written objection to the complaint

that the long delay was attributable to the

fact that the scheme was tied up in

litigation for many years and when that

litigation was over, the draw prescribed

for allotment of land was held. Since the

respondent had failed in this draw, the

allotment of the land could not be made and

therefore, the refund was offered. After

hearing the parties and on the basis of the

available records, the MRTP Commission held

that the land was indeed allotted to the

respondent and the cancellation of the

respondent's allotment when other allottees

had been given the plots in the same 4

circumstances amounted to an "unfair trade

practice" under Section 36 of the MRTP Act.

The MRTP Commission also held that the

respondent had suffered pecuniary losses

and damages. Based on these findings, the

MRTP Commission directed the GDA to allot

90 sq. mtrs. of plot to the respondent in

Govindpuram Scheme and in case the plot was

not available, to hand over the possession

of vacant plot of the same size to the

respondent in other schemes nearby the

Govindpuram Scheme at the previously

decided price. Feeling aggrieved by this

order, the GDA has come up in appeal in

this Court.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and after going through the order of

the MRTP Commission as well as the other

available records, two questions crop up

before us for decision of this appeal: -

(i) Whether any unfair trade practice was

resorted to by the GDA;

5 (ii) Whether the MRTP Commission had the

jurisdiction to direct the GDA to allot an

alternative plot of land to the respondent

at the previously fixed price under the

MRTP Act.

4. Before we go into these questions, we may,

at this stage, narrate certain other facts

also, which would be required for decision

in this appeal. In October 1988, the GDA had

floated a housing scheme the particulars of

which are reproduced as under.

"Col.3.40 - This scheme relates to pay plan which says that the plots/houses under these schemes are being constructed under lump sum plan (code 1), self financing plan (code 2) and hire purchase plan (code 3).

Col.3.43 The reservation amount, as mentioned in column 8 of table 1 is to be paid within 30 days from the date of reservation letter.

Col. 3.66 If payment fixed for such allotment of land is not made within three months after its due date along with penal interest, if any, the allotment shall be treated as cancelled without notice. The GDA reserves its right to cancel for non-payment within 6

the time specified in column 3.66 without notice.

Col.8 The allotment will be made by a manual computerized draw in the presence of applicants who wish to be present as per the serial Nos. of the application forms. Claim for any particular house by any applicant will not be acceptable. Dates of lottery for reservation and allotment shall be published in the newspaper. Col.9 speaks about unsuccessful applicants.

Col.9.10 Those applicants, who have not been allotted/reserved plots/houses, will be returned their registration amount without interest if the period of deposit of such money with the GDA is less than one year.

Col.9.20 If the period of deposit is more than one year 5% simple interest shall be paid for the entire period of deposit. Co.9.30 For the purpose of calculation of period of deposit the month of deposit & refund shall not be counted. Any period after the date of start of refund of registration amount of unsuccessful applicants, shall not be counted for the purpose of calculation of `period of deposit'."

Keeping the columns, as noted herein above,

in mind, let us now proceed with the other

subsequent relevant documents. A letter dated 10th

of February, 1989 issued by the GDA to the 7

respondent is one of the important documents that

needs to be considered by us in disposing of this

appeal. This letter indicates reservation of Plot

E in Govindpuram Scheme and the estimated cost is

shown as Rs.55, 800/-. The payment schedule as

appearing from the same is as under: -

The due date for payment is 10th of March,

1989 and the amount due indicated in the said

letter is Rs.50, 000/-.

The conditions for taking account for non-

payment is shown in the following manner -

(i) The grace period of one month shall be given

for payment of the above amount after the due

date.

(ii) If the amounts payable to the GDA are not

paid within the prescribed time limit, penal

interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall be

payable along with the payable amounts. If the

payment is not made within three months after its

due date along with penal interest, if any, the 8

allotment shall be treated cancelled without

notice.

The reservation of Plot E in Govindpuram

Scheme so far as the respondent was concerned was

subject to rules and regulations in force,

prescribed from time to time by the GDA or the

State Government. It was also stated in the

letter that the terms and conditions as

stipulated in the brochure of above scheme hold

good and the allocation was subjected to those

conditions. Draw for specific plot number was to

be held separately.

5. Having considered the relevant materials, as

noted hereinabove, let us now look at the

findings of the MRTP Commission based on

which it has passed the impugned order. The

findings are as under: -

1. By a reservation letter dated 10.2.1989, the GDA

intimated the complainant regarding

reservation/allocation of a plot in Plot E category

in Govindpuram Plots Scheme in the name of the

complainant and was allotted/reserved allottee code 9

no. 539 700 0070 for an approximate area of 90 sq.

metres.

2.The complainant deposited Rs. 45000/- vide demand

draft dated 10.4.1989 with the GDA within grace

period and the balance Rs. 5000 was paid vide

demand draft dated 7.1.1990 with 18 %penal interest

amounting to Rs. 750/- and therefore, the

complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs.

58000/- by the end of January, 1990.

3.The order of the Allahabad High Court in Satya

Prakash Vs. State of UP dated 24.4.1991 nowhere

mentioned that the area of the Govindpuran scheme

had been reduced and therefore the reason given by

the GDA was not supported by this order of the

Allahabad High Court.

6. We have examined the findings of the MRTP

Commission in the light of the materials on

record. Having done that, it is difficult to

conceive that the respondent was unsuccessful in

the draw of lots as alleged by the GDA, which is

the excuse given by them for not giving the 10

possession of the plot to the respondent. It is

an admitted fact that the GDA had already issued

a reservation/allocation letter to the respondent

and it is also a finding of the MRTP Commission

that the respondent had paid the full amount of

Rs.58000/-. This shows that the respondent was

successful in the draw of lots because otherwise,

where was the need for the GDA to issue the

reservation/allocation letter to the respondent

which also required him to make the necessary

payments. In this view of the matter, we affirm

the finding of the MRTP Commission that the act

of the GDA amounted to an unfair trade practice.

7.Having decided issue no.1 in the manner

indicated above, the other question that we

need to decide is whether the MRTP Commission

had the jurisdiction to direct the GDA to

handover possession of a vacant plot of 90 sq.

mtrs. to the respondent in the Govindpuram

scheme or if not available, an alternative plot

in some other scheme. So far as this question

is concerned, we hold that the MRTP Commission 11

was clearly in error in directing the GDA to

handover possession to the respondent. Under

the Act, there are provisions for inquiries

that can be instituted by the MRTP Commission

while Section 36D read with Section 12A and 12B

lay down the powers of the MRTP Commission in

dealing with instances of Unfair trade

practices. None of the provisions seem to

indicate that the MRTP Commission has the

authority to do what it did in this case. The

MRTP Commission has the power to impose damages

or give compensation to the respondent as a

mode of redressal for harm caused by the unfair

trade practices, but it certainly cannot assume

the powers of the civil court because the

action of the MRTP commission in this case

virtually amounts to grant of specific

performance.

8.In this view of the matter and in view of the

foregoing reasons, we consider it appropriate

to remand this appeal to the MRTP Commission 12

for decision afresh on the compensation, which

may be given to the respondent in accordance

with law along with refund of the amount

deposited by the respondent with the GDA with

simple interest. The appeal is thus allowed to

the extent indicated above. No costs.

..........................................J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

........................................J. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] New Delhi.

May 14,2008.