Delhi High Court
Agrasen Co-Operative Group Housing ... vs D.D.A. on 23 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998IAD(DELHI)768, AIR1998DELHI164, 1998(44)DRJ387, AIR 1998 DELHI 164, (1998) 44 DRJ 387
ORDER
C.M. Nayar, J.
<
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.11,81,350/- with pendente lite and future interest as well as costs.
2. The plaintiff Agrasen Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') is a Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 vide Serial No.396(GH) on December 19, 1979 with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi. The principal object of formation of the society was to acquire a piece of land for allotment to its members. Shri Suresh Srivastva is the Secretary of the Society and is duly authorised by Resolution of the Society passed in its Executive meeting held on January 21, 1988 to sign, verify, file and institute and prosecute the present suit and to take all necessary steps to pursue the same.
3. The Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA') is created under the Act of Parliament with the object of acquiring and developing land for residential and commercial usage. It is further stated in the plaint that in a number of policy resolutions and declarations of the DDA and other Government bodies, the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the Lt. Governor, it was proclaimed that the DDA shall be providing land to the society which was formed and duly registered under the Delhi Cooperative societies Act, 1972. The object of opening registration in pursuance of Scheme of DDA is to provide suitable land to the housing societies. Relying on the declarations and to achieve the purpose of procuring suitable land from DDA for the purpose of construction of multistoreyed flats the plaintiff Society was formed and registered. The members of the Society contributed under the belief and assurance that suitable and good land will be provided. The acquisition of land by the DDA and the subsequent allotment to the plaintiff's society is detailed in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 of the plaint which may be reproduced as follows:
"3. That after acquiring the land the D.D.A. registers the same and hands over the developed land through allotment or auction to various persons for construction upon it. The plaintiff Society upon its request was also offered land by the DDA for construction of Group Housing Complex upon the said land. The plaintiff Society further deposited a sum of Rs.19,51,328.30 in pursuance of demand of the DDA vide their letter No.F.4(553) 80-CS/DDA dated 2.2.1982. This amount the DDA had taken for the purposes of providing land on which multistoreyed flats are to be constructed. There was a clear and unambiguous assurance by the DDA that the land they are providing be developed land and it was clearly understood that the land would not be below the road level and the same shall be plain and even. With this clear understanding, agreement and contract with the DDA, the plaintiff Society had chosen to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.19,51,328.30. This promise is further clear from the following documents; which substantially provide as :
Letter dt.11.4.1985 Please refer to your No.DDIX/3(42)81/2064-65 from letter... about earth Sh.R.C.Kinger, Executive filling work in plot No.66, Engineer, Development Mandawali Fazalpur (Zone Division IX, DDA to the E-13). The tenders for earth plaintiff society. filling have been received in this office and shall be sent to the competent authority for approval. It is expected to start the work within a fortnight or so.
Letter dt.31.1.1985 No.CE, Sub:Filling of pond III/24(52)84/411 from With reference to your A.S.Kanwar, Office of the letter No. dt.5.1.85 on the Chief Engineer, Zone III to above subject, I am directed the plaintiff society to inform you that the tenders have already been called and the work is likely to be executed shortly.
Letter dt.21.1.1985 from Sub:Filling of pond Dy.Director (GH) to the Zonal Chief Engineer-III, "... You were requested to DDA, with a copy of the get the ponds filled on the plaintiff society. land allotted to the Agrasen Cooperative Group Housing Society... but nothing has been heard in this respect so far.
You are, therefore, again requested to get the needful done at the earliest."
4. That after receipt of the huge amount referred to in the above para, the DDA called upon the plaintiff to take over the possession of the land measuring 4.383 acres in Patparganj (Mandavli Fazalpur) for the construction of flats for allotment to the member of the plaintiff society vide DDA's letter No.F.4(553)/80/GH/DDA dated 14.5.1983.
5. That on receipt of the letter referred to in the above para dt.14.5.1983, the plaintiffsociety's some of the office bearers inspected the land and found that there was a pond in the land covering almost 1/3rd of the total land of the Society was more than six feet deep from the road level. Besides other defects, the level of the surface on the whole was uneven. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff society which desperately required the land had no alternative except to accept the plot of land allotted under protest. Accordingly, the Society had taken the possession of the plot of land on 3.6.1983 under protest and later even got a letter of protest also submitted to the DDA. Thereafter the Society's office bearers approached the DDA to fill up the pond of land as was contracted and they (DDA) promised that they shall be filling up the pond of land in the plaintiff Society's land. As the DDA failed to fill up the pond of land, the Society addressed letter dated 2.3.1984, besides letters written earlier, to the DDA requesting them to take steps for filling up the land pursuant to which the Society would be able to embark upon the construction on the said plot. Several repeated requests were made orally and in writing to the DDA."
4. The main grievance of the plaintiff society in view of the above facts would, therefore, show that DDA did not keep its promise of filling up the pond though various communications showing the promise and indicating the policy and schemes made by DDA were referred to. These alleged assurances are stated in the plaint in the following paragraph which read as follows:
"6. That every time the plaintiff Society was approaching the DDA or writing letter to them the defendant kept on promising the plaintiffsociety that they shall be filling up the pond. The DDA also sent various communications owning the promise and indicating the policies and schemes made by it. The DDA also referred to one of the policy letter No.F.2(67)84/GH/DDA dated March,1984, wherein it was specifically admitted and assured that the "if the level of land allotted to the society is more than 1'-6" below the road level, then the filling be done so that the land remains on the average 1'-6" below the road level". This assurance and promise was given by approving the said policy decision by the Vice Chairman, DDA in file No.F.2(67)86/GH/DDA. However, the DDA is supposed as per the contract to fill up the said 1'-6" area also. The society also vide its letters dated 9.4.1984, 30.8.1984, 25.10.1984, 10.11.1984, 5.1.1985, 8.1.1985, 10.2.1985, 2.3.1985, 22.4.1985, 20.5.1985, 6.6.1985, 15.6.1985, requested the DDA to fill up the pond of land at the earliest so that the Society may start construction on that which was being considerably delayed on account of nonfilling up of pond on land and further requested the DDA to honour its commitment, promise, contract and agreement to fill up the said pond and make the land usable. The DDA acknowledged the said letters and in some of the letters the DDA specifically agreed that they shall honour its commitment to fill up the pond of the land. Some of the letters vide which the DDA requested its own Chief Engineers to fill up the said land are letters dated 11.2.1984 and 29.1.1984, 17.4.1984, 5.4.1984, 21.7.1984.
7. The Deputy Director (Group Housing) vide its letter dated 1.12.1984 asked the Zonal Chief Engineer-3, DDA, Vikas Kutir to fill up the pond of land allotted to the plaintiffSociety in Mandavli Fazalpur. Similar request was made by the Dy. Director (Group Housing) again vide letter dated 29.1.1985.
8. That by a letter dated 31.1.1985, the Society was further informed by the DDA that the tenders have been invited for filling up the land/pond and the work would be executed shortly. On 11.4.1985, the DDA further sent a letter to the Society stating that the tenders had been received for earth filling in the plaintiffSociety's plot of land and the same would be sent for approval and the work in the Society's site would start within a fortnight or so. However, no action was taken and contractual and legal obligation was not fulfillled and the Society was made to suffer and bear with such claims. That on 3.7.1985 the Government of India also addressed a written communication to the DDA requesting the DDA to honour its commitment and to take steps for filling up the pond in question. All the aforesaid ommitments/promises were made to please the Society's officials that the DDA is honouring its commitment under the contract and agreement by virtue of which they have persuaded the Society to accept the place of land in question.
9. The plaintiff further referred to letter dated 24.7.1985 addressed by the DDA to the Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Society Ltd. wherein the DDA has stated that DDA will meet the commitment of filling up ditches at the time of handing over the possession of the land. It is further stated that DDA would fix the cost and compensate the Society for the same. The plaintiff craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to the said letter dated 24.7.1985. However, despite its commitment and repeated assurances to the plaintiff the DDA has failed to take any action in the matter."
5. The plaintiff society had to commence the construction of the housing complex at 66, Patparganj on the land allotted by the DDA in the year 1983 and as the cost of the construction was considerably low and on account of false assurances of the DDA, the entire project of the plaintiff was delayed and as a result the plaintiff society could merely commence the construction in the year 1986 when the total cost of construction had risen considerably. The plaintiff has attributed the following losses due to the negligence of the DDA and its refusal to comply with its obligation by law as well as by contract: a) On account of cost of filling up the pond Rs.11,75,000/-
b) b) Cost of cant our plan expenses Rs. 5,000/-
c) c) Cost of advertisement inviting tenders for filling up the pond Rs. 1,350/-
d) d) On account of increase in the cost of construction due to the delay caused by the failure of the DDA to fill up the pond. Rs.10,00,000/- -------------- Rs.21,82,350/- --------------
The plaintiff society, as stated above, allegedly incurred a sum of Rs.,11,75,000/- as cost of filling up of the pond and claimed this amount in notice under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act and relinquished the claim for the remaining amount. This amount has been claimed with interest and costs in the present proceedings.
6. The defendant has filed written statement and made the following averments:
(i) The plaintiff was offered semi developed land measuring 4.383 acres at predetermined provisional rate of Rs.110/- per Sq. Meter by the letter dated 2nd February, 1982, asking the plaintiff to pay 25% of the cost within 30 days and the balance within 90 days from the date of issue of the letter. The offer was made to the society for semi developed land. It was emphatically denied that there was a clear and unambiguous assurance by the defendant that the land to be provided would be fully developed land. There was no such understanding/agreement/contract as alleged.
(ii) The office bearers of the plaintiff society did not approach the defendant as alleged in the plaint and neither any promise was made by the defendant as referred to in the plaint.
(iii) However, by the policy letter No.F.2(67)84/GH/DDA dated 14th March, 1984 a policy was arrived at in the office of the defendant and it was decided that if the level of the land was more than 1'.6" below the road level, D.D.A. would take the task of filling of the ditch and would see that the land was atleast to the level of 1'.6" below the road level. This apparently was agreeable to the plaintiff Society.
(iv) The building activity could be started by the plaintiff only after the sanction of the building plan. The defendant had invited the tenders for the job of filling of the ditch in question, but the work could not be taken up for want of administrative approval and/or expenditure sanction of the Competent Authority of the defendant. Because of the nonavailability of the sanction or clear instructions, the earth work could not be undertaken. It was denied that the construction of the building had been delayed on account of the alleged nonfilling of the ditch in the land in question. The construction work could be carried out by the society on the plot after obtaining the sanction of the building plan from the Joint Director (Building). As per the record, building plan was approved by the Deputy Director (Building) on 25th April, 1986 vide his letter No. F.23(2)84-Building/387 dated 25th April, 1986 conditionally, as such it is evident that the building activity could not be started before the 25th April, 1986. On receipt of the request dated 5th March, 1987 of the Society, permission to mortgage the land allotted to the society for raising loan from Delhi Cooperative Finance Society for construction etc. was granted to the Society on 31st March, 1987. It indicated that the Society was unable to take up the construction work on the earlier dates. Defendant, therefore, was not liable for the delay, if any.
7. Replication was filed by the plaintiff Society wherein the averments made in the plaint were reiterated.
8. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 21st February, 1991.
1. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff?OPP
2. Whether the land given by the defendant to the plaintiff was either undeveloped or semideveloped? OPP
3. If the answer to Issue No.2 is in the affirmative; whether the defendant had to give to the plaintiff fully developed land? OPP
4. Whether the parties are bound by a decision of the defendant dated 14.3.1984? Onus on both parties.
5. Whether a valid notice under section 53-B of the Delhi Development Act has been served on the defendants? If not, to what effect?
6. Whether the allegation of the defendant that the plaintiff could not start the building activity before 25.4.86 is correct? OPD
7. Whether the construction by the plaintiff was delayed on account of the defendant?
8. If the answer to Issue No.7 is in the affirmative; whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the defendant? If so, at what amount?
9. Relief.
ISSUE NO.1
9. The suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff society through its Secretary. The extract from the Minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee of the plaintiff society held on January 27, 1988 has been placed on record which vests power in Shri S.K.Srivastava, Secretary to file the present suit, to sign and verify the pleadings and to do all such acts and deeds as may be required or necessary in filing, instituting and also prosecuting the legal action against the defendant Authority. This issue has not been contested by learned counsel for the defendant as well. There fore, it is decided in favour of the plaintiff and is held that the suit has been filed by a duly authorised person.
ISSUES NO.2,3 & 410. The plaintiff was allotted land by letter dated May 14, 1983 which may be reproduced as follows:
"DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETIES CELL No.F.4(553)/80/GH/DDA/ dated 14.5.1983 From:
S.P.Marwah, Director (G.H.) To:
The Honey. Secretary/President, The Agarsen coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.
C-277, Vivek Vihar, Delhi 110 032 Subject:Allotment of land.
Sir, In continuation of this office letter dated 29.6.82 allotting to the society a plot of land measuring 4.383 Acres in Patpar Ganj (Mandavali Fazalpur) area for the construction of flats for allotment to its members, you are hereby informed that possession of the site will be handed over on 3.6.83 at 9.30A.M. It is requested that the authorised representatives of the society should reach the Site office at the above mentioned date and time and contact the D.D.A. officials who will hand over the physical possession of the land to the society.
The documents of title to the land will be handed over to you on Tuesday on 17.5.1983 at 10.30A.M. near D.T.C. Bus Depot, Patparganj. You are requested to appear to collect these papers to enable you to take over physical possession on the appointed date and time.
The society will be liable to pay any additional amount, that may fall due on final adjustment depending on the actual area handed over or on some other ground, whatsoever.
The physical possession of land will be given only to person duly authorised by the Management Committee of the society. He will have to produce the Authority letter signed by the President & the Secretary containing the signatures of the Authorised Representatives duly attested by the office bearers. He is also advised to bring with him the rubber stamp of the society.
Sd/-
Director (G.H.)14.5.83"
11. The Society took possession of the land but requested the DDA that the level of surface may be made even and the pond should be filled with mud and other defects may be removed. This Communication dated June 3, 1983 Exhibit P-2 reads as under:
"The Director (G.H.) Cooperative Group Hosing Societies Cell, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi.
Sir, With reference to your letter No.F.4(553)/80/GH/DDA dated 14th May, 1983, by which we have been called to take over the possession of the land measuring 4.383 Acres on 3rd June, 1983, it is submitted as follows:
The office bearers and some of the members of the society have inspected the land and found that there is a big pond in the land covering almost 1/3rd of the deep from the road level. Besides other defects, the level of the surface on the whole is uneven.
Nevertheless, to avoid any complications at this stage, the Managing Committee of the Agrasen Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. has decided to accept the possession under protest.
It is, therefore, requested that the level of surface may be made even and the pond should be filled with mud and other defects may be removed.
This right of the Society is in addition to and not in derogation of any other rights society possesses.
Thanking you, Sd/- Madan Lal Jalan Secretary"
12. The reading of the above Communication dated May 14,1983 no where indicates that it was mandatory on the part of the DDA to allot fully developed or semi developed land to the society. To satisfy with regard to the mode of allotment and other procedure the record of DDA was summoned and the concerned officer was directed to be present in Court. He has produced the relevant documents with regard to the allotment of land in favour of Group Housing Societies. Reference may be first made to the Communication dated February 2,1982 addressed to the plaintiff Society dealing with the subject "Allotment of land under `Group Housing Scheme'". The DDA considered the application of the petitioner and inter alia stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 as follows:
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Cooperative Group Housing Cell) No.F.4(553)80-CS/DDH Dated 2.2.1982 To The Honey Secretary, Agra Sen Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
C-277, Vivek Vihar, Delhi 110 032 Sub:Allotment of land under 'Group Housing Scheme' Sir, "1. With reference to the Society's application No.255 dated 11.8.81 for allotment of land, I am to inform you that this Society is being considered for allotment of land as per actual requirement worked out on the basis of the number of members as per the list verified by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, subject to the condition that not more than five acres of land shall be allotted to any Society.
2. The land will be allotted on Lease Hold basis in one of the areas earmarked for cooperative Group Housing purposes namely Patpar Ganj, C.B.D. Shahdra, Geeta Colony, Rohtak Road, Pitam Pura, Bodella & Rohini. The provisional rates of premium are Rs.110/- for areas falling in Rohini, C.B.D. Shahdra, Geeta Colony, Patpar Ganj & Bodella and Rs.135/- per sq. mtr. for areas falling in Rohtak Road & Pitam Pura. These rates are gross area rates for semideveloped land."
13. Similarly it was stated that possession of the land would be given to the Society only when it has deposited the full cost of land subject to the conditions as specified in this Communication. Reference was next made to paragraph 12.9 from booklet titled "Guidelines on Land Management" which reads as follows:
"12.9 The Societies carry out internal development of the area allotted to them at their own expense. DDA is, however, responsible for providing roads, sewerage lines, flood water drains and electric lines upto the periphery only."
On the basis of the above, it is contended by learned counsel for the defendant that the defendant was only to provide roads, sewerage lines, flood water drains and electric lines upto the periphery and these facilities were provided to the plaintiff Society. Therefore, the land which was allotted to petitioner could be termed as semideveloped and not undeveloped. The initial allotment letter dated February 21, 1982 Exhibit D-1 as well as the subsequent allotment letter by which the possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff society (exhibit P-1) no where specifies that the DDA will allot fully developed land to the Society or even the semi developed land.
14. The plaintiff Society is trying to take advantage of the policy decision dated March 14, 1984 which is filed as Exhibit P-15. The same may be reproduced as follows:
"DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETIES CELL No.F.2(67)/84/GH/DDA/ Dated March, 1984 Subject:EARTH FILLING/LEVELLING OF LAND ALLOTTED TO VARIOUS GROUP HOUSING SOCIETIES.
Following decisions have been taken in respect of land allotted to Cooperative Group Housing Societies in different areas:
1. That land allotted to the societies if on an average is 1'-6" below than the design road level, no filling be done.
2. That if the level of land allotted to the society is more than 1'-6" below the road level, then the filling be done so that the land remains on an average 1'-6" below the road level.
3. The depressions due to the abandoned brick kilns and area bearing pits be filled upto 1'-6" below the road level.
4. All filling, wherever required, be done before the society starts its construction and no request be entertained lateron.
The above criteria has been duly approved by the V.C., DDA in file No.F.2(67)86(GH)/DDA/.
It is requested that necessary action be taken up in accordance with the above decision.
Sd/-
(S.P.Marwah) 14.3.1984 Director(Group Housing)"
In answer to the above the learned counsel for the defendant has clearly stated that the matter was being considered to help the Society to fill up the pond and it was taken at the highest level and the following noting from the file may be referred to in this regard:
"PUC may kindly be seen which is a legal notice from Shri Suresh Minocha, Advocate on behalf of Agrasen Cooperative Group Housing Society is regarding reimbursement of the cost of levelling and filling of plot No.66 in Mandavali Fazalpur allotted to the Agrasen C.G.H.Society. The Society was allotted land measuring 4.383 acres in M.Fazalpur in Patpar Ganj area @ Rs.110/- per sq. mtrs. The total cost of land has been deposited by the society.
The Society has now stated through its Advocate that Society incurred an expenditure of Rs.11,81,900/- on filling and levelling of land as per estimate given by the Society. They have requested that this amount incurred by them may be reimbursed to them as their contention is that this would be the liability of DDA.
In this regard it may be mentioned that the land allotted to the Cooperative Group Housing Societies on predetermined rates which are very concessional and it will not be possible for DDA to bear the extra cost of levelling and filling of land allotted to the Group Housing Societies.
.... ........ .........."
15. In answer to the plea that the DDA agreed to fill and level sites allotted to Group Housing Societies and had even invited tenders for the purpose, the matter was considered at the highest level and the claim of the Society was rejected after due application of mind by the Commissioner on 27th December, 1991.
16. The matter was,therefore, duly considered at all levels and it was not found economical and feasible to incur the extra expenditure for filling up the pond and no amount under this head was spent in respect of any other Group Housing Society. Coming to the evidence on record the witness of the plaintiff i.e. PW1 Shri Vinod Srivastava has nowhere stated that the land was allotted to the plaintiff society after having it fully developed. In crossexamination this witness reiterated that there was nothing on record to indicate that at the time of taking possession of the land the office bearers of the plaintiff Society raised dispute with regard to the question of land not being developed. The specific question was asked by the Court and the answer was as follows:
Q. Did DDA promise the society for allotting developed land?
Ans. DDA specifically did not say that they will give developed plot. The DDA also did not say that they will give a semideveloped plot.
He has further stated in his testimony as under:
"There is nothing in the record of the society to indicate that the DDA forced the society to agree for taking possession of the suit land. It is correct that there is nothing in writing to show that the DDA undertook to fill up the pond. The construction of the flats were started in the year 1985-86 but the portion of the land where the pond was located at that time was left out. The D.H.F.C. Limited granted loan to some of the members of the society in the year 1985-86. The plan of the building was sanctioned by the DDA."
17. PW2 Shri Rakesh Kumar was also examined. This witness was not sure as to whether it was the responsibility of the DDA to fill up the pond of the land allotted to the Society. Similarly Shri D.P.Gupta who was examined as PW3 stated as follows in crossexamination:
"The construction was started in about 7-8 years. I do not remember when DDA was last contacted by us for filling up the pond. I do not know whether DDA was informed that we had invited tender for filling up the pond. No consent of DDA was taken by us. No authority was given to us by DDA to invite tender for this purpose and no officer of DDA agreed to reimburse the plaintiff, the cost of filling up the pond. We did not get our accounts of the cost of filling up the pond verified by any DDA official. We have not taken any authority from DDA for spending the amount incurred on filling up the pond. It is wrong to suggest that no assurance was given to us by DDA at any point of time to get the land levelled."
18. On the other hand the defendant examined DW1 Mr.Kumar Anand, Joint Director, Group Housing Society Cell to prove that the Society did not lodge any protest when it took possession of the land. This witness deposed as follows:
"The document of title of the land was handed over to the society on 17.5.83. When the possession was handed over to the society at site on 3.6.83, the plan of the land allotted to this society was signed by the concerned Assistant Engineer, Sh.S.N.Sharma on behalf of DDA and by Sh.Madan Lal Jalan, Secretary of the plaintiff society, on behalf of the society. That plan is already exhibited as Ex.D1. Had the plaintiff society accepted the possession under any protest,that would have been recorded on this plan because this is the only document prepared at that time of handing over possession of the land to this society. On our file, there is no objection from the plaintiff society on 3.6.83 regarding the condition of the land handed over to it."
DW2 Shri S.N.Sharma, Assistant Engineer, H.U.P.W. DDA corroborated the statement made by DW1 in the following manner:
"On that day, the possession is handed over to the person authorised by the Society to receive possession on its behalf. The plaintiff society never approached me at a later stage for getting the ponds filled. There were no ponds on the land when the possession was handed over. There may have been small pits on the land though I do not remember exactly as it is a 13 years old matter."
He further deposed as follows:
"If DDA has to get the earth filled, it will invite tenders and award the work to the contractor. If the possession is accepted under protest, the society can give a note to this effect on the plan. I am not conversant with the written statement filed by DDA in this case. It is wrong to suggest that there was a pond on the land handed over to the society. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff society accepted possession under protest and also wrote letter to me in this regard."
19. The documentary as well as the oral evidence as has been referred above nowhere would establish that it was imperative on the part of the defendant to hand over the fully developed land to the plaintiff society. At best the land could be held to be semideveloped by providing the necessary surfaces upto the periphery. The society, however, chose to construct the flats and allot the same to its members. It is also established that the plaintiff was allotted land at a very concessional rate and it was, their responsibility to develop the same and not the responsibility of the defendant to do so. The matter, in any case, was considered by the defendant Authority and it was held that normally semideveloped lands have been offered to the Group Housing Societies at most concessional rates. On specific query the learned counsel for the defendant clearly stated that no such claim was entertained from any other Society and no amount has been disbursed on this ground. In view of the above, the plaintiff Society has not made out a case for grant of the relief as claimed in the present suit. Issues 2,3 and 4 are decided accordingly against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO.5 There is no serious contest by the defendant with regard to this issue. The same is, accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUES NO.6, 7 & 820. These issues were not pressed by learned counsel for the plaintiff at the time of arguments. Therefore, no findings are required to be given in respect of the same. In view of the above reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.