National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avaas Samiti ... vs The Chairman, Ghaziabad Development ... on 27 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: IV(2007)CPJ20(NC)
ORDER
M.B. Shah, J. (President)
1. This case is a glaring illustration to establish that consumer is not a King, but could be a subject and object of harassment and exploitation, by none other than a Statutory Body, in the present case, the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA).
2. The GDA acquired the land of the Complainant and promised to deliver developed area in lieu of the acquired land, after recovering development charges. The amount of compensation to be paid to the Complainant on account of land acquisition was retained by the GDA. The allotment was given to the complainant in the year 1992 with the specific conditions that payment of development charges shall be paid as per the schedule of payment, and also that construction over the land shall be completed latest by 29.6.97. Yet possession was not delivered to the Complainant.
3. Even the direction given by this Commission to the GDA on 25.8.2005 to deliver the possession was opposed with vehemence, that too, without giving proper information about the exact calculations, and exaggerated amount was demanded. From the facts it appears to be a case of harassment for oblique motive and the Complainant was made to run from one end to another with no result.
4. The facts narrated in detail hereinafter would reveal that the observations made by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, will aptly apply to this case. The observations are as under:
The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, 'a network of rackets' or a society in which, 'producers have secured power' to 'rob the rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot.
5. The Apex Court further observed:
10. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it....
11. ...It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system.
Facts:
6. Admittedly, the Complainant, Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avaas Samiti Ltd., a registered Co-operative Housing Society, was formed with an objective to provide residential plots to its members and hence purchased a piece of land in village Makanpur, Ghaziabad, U.P. for the said purpose.
7. A portion of the land admeasuring 12.5 acres was acquired by the opp.party [GDA] by its Board Resolution dated 3.9.1990 with a specific understanding that 60% developed land would be allotted to the Society in lieu of the acquired land of 12.5 acres. The Resolution is reproduced hereinbelow:
In reference of your application dated 3.8.90, the Board of GDA has decided in its board meeting held on 3.9.90 that The 12.5 acres of land of Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd. has been acquired in Indirapuram Housing Residential Scheme and in lieu of that acquired land, an equal area to 60% of the developed land be allotted to society for proposed objective and no compensation for land will be paid to society and society will have to pay the development charge of the land to GDA accordingly.
8. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad, by his letter dated 24.12.1991 (reproduced hereinbelow), informed the GDA that the compensation to be paid for the acquired land would come to Rs.82,41,389.95p. and further recommended that the said amount be adjusted in favour of Ghaziabad Development Authority. The letter reads as under:
Kindly refer to the subject mentioned above through your letter No.173/12/537/SLAO/91 dated 16.10.91 and letter No.180 dated 25.10.91 in which you have sought information about the compensation of land which is being acquired by GDA in Indirapuram Residential Housing Scheme. In this context, it is submitted that after the order passed on 3.7.91 by District Magistrate in Case No.48, Under Section 154(2)/167(2) of ZALR Act against the society, 20 bighas or 12.50 acres of land stands allotted in the name of Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd. in Village Makanpur. The compensation of this land after the standard deductions, comes to Rs.82,41,389.95 on 20.12.91, this is being adjusted in favour of Ghaziabad Development Authority Account instead of being paid to Society.
9. On 30.6.1992, the GDA wrote a letter to the Secretary of the complainant allotting 7.5. acres of developed land in Indirapuram Housing Scheme of the GDA with the following conditions:
A. Society will not be paid any compensation for his 12.50 acres acquired land.
B. Society will have to pay development charges to GDA in respect of 7.5 acres of allotted land and a payment schedule pertaining to amount of payment & their instalments will be issued to society shortly.
C. The terms and conditions of the allotment of land will be binding on the society.
10. Again, on 14.8.1992, the GDA wrote another letter to the complainant society mentioning therein the payment schedule by instalments. The said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:
In pursuance to our letter No.987/dt.30/6/92, you are hereby informed that of the total area of developed land measuring 30,345 sq.metre (7.50 acres) allotted to the society at the rate of 1164.19 per sq.metre, as development charges, a total amounting to Rs.3,53,27,649.00 is due to be paid by the society. You are, therefore, requested to deposit 20% of the amount i.e. Rs.70,65,529.80 within 30 days of receipt of this letter and, balance 80% is to be paid in 8 equal half yearly installments.
S.No. Installment Amount @ 18% interest Total Amount Due Date
1.
35,32,764.90 25,43,590.70 60,76,355.60 31.1.93
2. 35,32,764.90 22,25,642.90 57,58,406.80 31.7.93
3. 35,32,764.90 19,07,693.00 54,40,457.90 31.1.94
4. 35,32,764.90 15,89,744.20 51,22,509.10 31.7.94
5. 35,32,764.90 12,71,795.40 48,04,456.30 31.1.95
6. 35,32,764.90 9,53,846.50 44,86,611.40 31.7.95
7. 35,32,764.90 6,35,897.70 41,68,662.60 31.1.96
8. 35,32,764.90 3,17,948.90 38,50,713.70 31.7.96 Failure to pay the instalments in due course of time the society will be liable to pay a penal 21% additional interest on the said amount and construction on site will have to be completed latest by 29.6.97. The members of the society and their dependents are requested to submit their affidavits through society that they do not possess any house or plot in the territory of Shahdara, Delhi and Ghaziabad.
11. As the G.D.A. has fixed the date of construction, the complainant society vide its letter dated 14.9.92 requested the GDA to provide site plan and also to re-calculate the development charges, as they were excessive according to the society. Details of the facilities which could be provided to the members in lieu of development charges were also sought. The society also stated in the said letter that they are not liable to pay penalty and interest in the absence of demarcation of land and supply of the site plan. They have also requested the GDA to ensure that possession of land would be immediately handed over to the Society and the entire payment would be made in one time. They have also requested the GDA to furnish information as to what were the services to be provided against the balance 40% of the land acquired by the GDA.
12. Thereafter, the important letter of GDA is dated 20.8.1998 wherein the Secretary of the GDA replied to the Society, as under:
Kindly take reference to our letter No. 987/Com.Sec/92 dated 30.6.92 by which you were allotted land in Indirapuram Housing Scheme but due to various reasons the allotment of land could not be done on site. In this context, you are informed that decision has been taken to allot 7.50 acres of developed land in Indirapuram Housing Scheme. The site plan, terms and conditions will be given to you along with the allotment letter which would be binding on the society.
13. This letter reveals that the GDA was not in a position to deliver the possession of 7.5 acres of the developed land to the Complainant for the reasons, according to them, beyond their control. It was also specifically stated that the site plan and terms and conditions would be given along with the allotment letter. Therefore, for the land which was acquired in 1988/89 the GDA was not in a position to deliver the possession of developed land till 1998. No site plan nor possession of the land was delivered to the Complainant. For hiding the said shortcoming, there is a hue and cry by the GDA that the Complainant is in default.
14. Virtually, after one year, i.e. vide letter dated 21.7.1999, the Executive Engineer of the GDA informed the Complainant that it was proposed to allot land to the Complainant in Abhaykhand in Indirapuram Housing Scheme. However, the saleable area of 7.5 acres of land comes to 4.5 acres of land and demand was made for the sum of Rs.3,46,86,430/- after deducting the amount deposited by the Complainant. The relevant portion of the letter is as under:
In reference to subject mentioned above, it is informed that land is proposed to be allotted to society at Abhay Khand in Indirapuram Housing Scheme. The 60% saleable area of the 7.50 acres of land comes to 4.5 acres of land i.e. 18216 sq.mtrs. in accordance with the rules after the adjustment of compensation amount and other deposits along with the interest on development charges, the total cost of land becomes Rs.3,46,86,430/-. The 20% of this amount i.e. Rs.69,17,286/- is to be deposited within a month of the issue of this letter and balance 80% in half yearly instalments along with 18% interest on it.
Instalment No. Installment Amount @ 18% interest Total Amount Due Date
1.
35,58,643.00 24,90,224/-
59,48,867/-
31.12.99
2. 35,58,643.00 21,78,946/-
56,37,589/-
30.6.2000
3. 35,58,643.00 18,67,668/-
53,26,311/-
31.12.2000
4. 35,58,643.00 15,56,390/-
50,15,033/-
30.6.2001
5. 35,58,643.00 12,45,112/-
47,03,755/-
31.12.2001
6. 35,58,643.00 9,33,834/-
43,92,477/-
30.6.2002
7. 35,58,643.00 6,22,556/-
40,81,199/-
31.12.2002
8. 35,58,643.00 3,11,278/-
37,69,921/-
30.6.2003 As per the norms mentioned above, an additional interest of 21% will be over due on the failure of payment of the instalment on due date. Rest terms & conditions will remain the same as usual. The actual plotted area will be calculated after the finalisation of actual layout plan of 7.5 acres.
15. Thereafter, vide letter dated 12.5.2000, the GDA wrote to the complainant society that:
Kindly refer to your letter dated 9.2.2000. The site plan of the land allotted to you, is being sent to you along with this letter, the area of land is approx.30408 sq.mtr. and it is situated in Abhay Khand-II of Indirapuram Housing Scheme.
16. Again, vide letter dated 3.11.2000, the Executive Engineer of the GDA supplied the revised payment schedule to the complainant society and informed that if the amount of Rs.1,69,32,480/- was not deposited immediately, proceeding for cancellation of the allotment would be initiated. The relevant part of the letter is as under:
Kindly take reference to your letter No. 621/Comm.Sec/2000 dated 19.9.2000. It is informed that you are not depositing the due amount of instalments according to the revised payment schedule against the land allotment in Indirapuram Housing Scheme. The GDA has allotted 7.50 acres of land to you in pursuance of the GDA's Board resolution. A payment schedule was issued earlier on 8.7.1999 to society after making the adjustment of the amount of compensation of land which was payable to society. You are requested to deposit 25% of the amount by 31.8.99, so the 1st installment of payment due was 31.12.1999 and second on 30.6.2000. The copy of revised schedule is attached along with this for your ready reference, but you have deposited so far Rs.40 lakhs only in various instalments. So, it is clear that you are not depositing the due instalment in due time. You were supposed to deposit Rs.1,69,32,480/- by 30.10.2000 in anticipation of land allotment.
17. Thereafter, by letter dated 12.2.2001 the Executive Engineer (Commercial) informed the Complainant to deposit Rs.2,51,30,821/- within 15 days otherwise the allotment of land would be cancelled. The relevant part thereof is as under:
Kindly take reference to subject mentioned above vide our letter No.639 and 19 dated 21.7.99 and 3.11.2000 by which Rs.2,51,30,821/- is due toward the society against the above mentioned land.
So you are finally informed vide this letter to deposit the balance amount of Rs.2,51,30,821/- within fifteen days of the issue of this letter otherwise allotment of land to the society will be cancelled and you will be entirely responsible for it and there will be no further consideration on your proposal.
18. Thereafter, by letter dated 8.5.2001, Ex. Engineer GDA requested the society to reconcile the whole record of account of balance payment and other deposits so that if there was any discrepancy in the account, the same could be removed and it was further stated as under:
Except this, you are requested to deposit the balance payment immediately otherwise the allotment of land will be cancelled for which you will be entirely responsible. Approximate Rs.1.5 crores is due towards the society.
19. A bare perusal of the above stated letters dated 12.2.2001 and 8.5.2001 shows that the G.D.A. is not certain as to how much amount is due from the Complainant.
Payment by the Complainant:
20. As against this, the Complainant has also produced on record details of payment made by it to the GDA.
SI. No. DATED AMOUNT (Rs.)
1. 18/12/92 4,00,000.00
2. 18/12/92 76,000.00
3. 18/12/92 24,000.00
4. 24/09/99 7,00,000.00
5. 15/12/99 3,95,000.00
6. 11/08/00 10,00,000.00
7. 15/09/00 7,00,000.00
8. 15/09/00 5,00,000.00
9. 15/09/00 5.00.000.00
10. 26/09/00 5,00,000.00
11. 26/09/00 5,00,000.00
12. 09/10/00 5,00,000.00
13. 09/10/00 5,00,000.00
14. 01/12/00 3,00,000.00
15. 01/12/00 5,00,000.00
16. 02/01/01 7,00,000.00
17. 06/01/01 2,00,000.00
18. 13/01/01 3,00,000.00
19. 15/01/01 2,00,000.00
20. 02/02/01 1,00,000.00
21. 02/02/01 1,00,000.00
22. 06/02/01 2,00,000.00
23. 09/02/01 4,50,000.00
24. 12/02/01 2,00,000.00
25. 13/02/01 1,95,000.00
26. 18/02/01 3,57,000.00
27. 19/02/01 1,98,000.00
28. 19/02/01 2,51,000.00
29. 20/02/01 3,61,000.00
30. 24/02/01 4,57,000.00
31. 25/02/01 3,07,000.00
32. 25/02/01 3,98,000.00
33. 01/03/01 10,32,000.00
34. 01/03/01 3,15,000.00
35. 01/03/01 4,05,000.00
36. 04/03/01 7,00,000.00
37. 05/03/01 5,05,000.00
38. 12/03/01 9,74,000.00
39. 13/03/01 7,38,000.00
40. 25/03/01 10,02,000.00
41. 16/04/01 8,00,000.00 TOTAL 1,85,40,000
21. In addition to the above stated payment of RS.1,85,40,000/- the amount of compensation of Rs.82,41,389/- to be paid to the Complainant on account of land acquisition was retained by the GDA since 20.12.1991.
22. As the possession of the land was not delivered, despite the aforesaid payment of Rs.1,85,00,000/- and Rs.82,41,389/- the Complainant has filed this complaint on 5.3.2002 praying that:
(a). the GDA be directed to provide site plan, details of the development work done and to hand over the physical possession of the developed land;
(b). the GDA be directed to pay interest for delay in delivering the possession at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by the Complainant; and,
(c). the GDA be directed to not to charge any interest at the rate of 21% p.a. on development charges and also not to compound the same.
Findings:
23. From the correspondence reproduced above, it is apparent that:
(a). as per the Resolution dated 3.9.1990 land measuring 12.5 acres belonging to the Complainant was acquired by the GDA. In lieu of the land acquired, it was agreed that 60% of the developed land would be allotted to the society and no compensation was to be paid, but the society was required to pay the development charges of the land.
(b). the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable to the Complainant at Rs.82,41,389/-. That amount was adjusted in favour of the GDA instead of being paid to the society.
(c). the Society was informed by letter dated 14.8.1992 that it was allotted 7.50 acres of developed land in Indirapuram Housing Scheme and the Complainant was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.3,53,27,649/- as development charges i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,164.19 ps. for 30,345 Sq. Mtrs., which is equal to 7.50 acers. There was also a specific direction to the Complainant to complete the construction on the site latest by 26.9.1997.
(d). On the basis of the said order the Complainant asked the GDA to provide site plan and to re-calculate the development charges as they were excessive so that the society could recover the development charges from the members. And, also to inform the society with regard to facilities that were to be provided. The society suggested that the entire payment could be made on one time basis, if the possession was handed over immediately and site plan be provided as the date of construction was fixed.
(e). Thereafter, correspondence went on between the society and the GDA. Finally, on 20.8.1998, the GDA informed the Complainant that due to various reasons the allotment of land could not be done on site and that the site plan and terms and conditions would be given to the society along with the allotment letter.
This letter, thereafter, clinches the question that the GDA was not in a position to deliver the possession of the land for various reasons, that too, after a period of ten years of acquisition of land. This would mean that the Complainant was not at fault, but the GDA was at fault.
(f). Virtually after one year i.e. on 21.7.99, the Executive Engineer of the GDA informed the Complainant that it was proposed to allot land to the Complainant in Abhaya Khand in Indirapuram Housing Scheme. The amount payable by the Complainant was mentioned at Rs.3,46,86,430/- and the installments were also provided, as stated in the schedule. There is a specific statement that the actual plotted area would be calculated after finalization of actual lay out plan of 7.5 acres.
(g). Subsequently, on 12.5.2000 the society was informed that site plan was being sent along with the letter for the land measuring approximately 30,408 sq. mts.
It is to be stated that no such site plan was sent.
(h). Thereafter, by letter dated 3.11.2000 the Complainant was required to deposit 1,69,32,480/- by 30.10.2000 in anticipation of land allotment.
(i). Again by letter dated 12.2.2001, the GDA required the Complainant to pay Rs.2,51,30,821/- within 15 days. Otherwise, allotment of land would be cancelled.
(j). Thereafter, vide letter dated 8.5.2001 the G.D.A. had asked the Complainant to deposit Rs.1.5 Crores. It has also suggested to the Complainant that any discrepancy in account would be taken care of.
24. Further, as stated above, the amount of compensation of Rs.82,81,41,389/- on account of land acquisition was kept by the GDA for allotment of the developed land to the Complainant. Thereafter, on our direction by Order dated 7.12.2006, the Complainant deposited Rs.1,73,00,000/- with the GDA. The total of the above three amounts comes to Rs.4,40,81,389/- [Rs.1,85,40,000, the amount that was deposited from 18.12.1992 to 16.4.2001 + Rs.1,73,00,000, the amount that was deposited as per the directions of this Commission + Rs.82,41,389, the amount of compensation on account of land acquisition which was retained by the GDA].
25. The aforesaid facts undoubtedly reveal that the complainant was subjected to maximum possible harassment by the public authority and it has caused harm not only to the complainant-society but also the society as a whole, because if there was no resistance by the Complainant crime and corruption would have increased. Despite our repeated efforts, the officers of the GDA did not deliver the possession of the land allotted to the complainant. Against the order directing the Opposite Party-GDA to deliver the possession, the GDA approached the Apex Court for no justifiable ground. It is crystal clear that if the Complainant were an ordinary citizen and not a Group of citizens, instead of fighting against the unjustifiable behaviour of the Opposite Party, they would have succumbed to the pressure of the undesirable functioning of the officers of the GDA.
Contentions of Shri Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate for the GDA:
(a) Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently contended that the complaint is time-barred.
In our view, this contention is totally baseless and misconceived. It is true that the complaint was filed on 5.3.2002, but at the same time, the correspondence quoted above clearly reveal that the land belonging to the Complainant was acquired by the GDA in the year 1990 and developed land was to be allotted to the Complainant. For years together, i.e. till the filing of the complaint in this Commission, possession of the land was not given, for no justifiable ground. Nowhere it is stated that the Complainant has not paid the money as demanded by the GDA. By the letter dated 12.2.2001 the GDA informed the Complainant to pay Rs.2,51,30,821 within 15 days, otherwise the allotment of the land would be cancelled.
Thereafter, the Complainant deposited a large amount which is given hereunder:
1.
12/02/01 2,00,000.00
2. 13/02/01 1,95,000.00
3. 18/02/01 3,57,000.00
4. 19/02/01 1,98,000.00
5. 19/02/01 2,51,000.00
6. 20/02/01 3,61,000.00
7. 24/02/01 4,57,000.00 8 25/02/01 3,07,000.00
9. 25/02/01 3,98,000.00
10. 01/03/01 10,32,000.00
11. 01/03/01 3,15,000.00
12. 01/03/01 4,05,000.00
13. 04/03/01 7,00,000.00
14. 05/03/01 5,05,000.00
15. 12/03/01 9,74,000.00
16. 13/03/01 7,38,000.00 17 25/03/01 10,02,000.00
18. 16/04/01 8,00,000.00 Total 91,95,000.00
18. Despite this, possession was not handed over nor allotment of land was cancelled. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can be contended that this complaint which was filed on 5.3.2002 is time barred.
(b) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Hansaria, again vehemently contended that the Complainant was required to pay interest on the development charges which were determined in 1992.
In our view, this submission is also without any substance because:
(i). Possession of the land was not delivered to the Complainant despite allotment letter dated 14th August, 1992 wherein the Complainant was asked to complete construction at the site latest by 29.6.1997. This would mean that possession was to be delivered in August, 1992.
(ii). Interest could have been charged if the possession of the developed land was delivered to the Complainant.
(iii ) Further, despite our repeated directions to the GDA to produce Rules and Regulations for charging interest, the GDA failed to produce the same and/or suppressed it for some ulterior purpose.
30. Further, it is to be stated that the GDA was required to give developed land admeasuring 7.5 acres. But nothing was done. No plotting on the land was carried out by the GDA. Pursuant to our order dated 25th August, 2005, possession of the land was delivered to the Complainant by the GDA. The Complainant also produced on record photographs of the land to establish that the land is totally undeveloped and uneven.
These facts reveal how and the manner in which public authorities can harass a common man, and how such a behaviour of the public body could degenerate into the storehouse of inaction which erodes credibility in the system.
Further, in spite of our specific directions, the GDA has not produced any evidence as to how it has arrived at the conclusion that the amount payable by the Complainant was Rs.3.46 Crores and odd. As stated above, the GDA was to develop 7.5 acres out of the 12.5 acres of acquired land and to hand over the plotted area/developed area to the Complainant. As such that is not done. Even if we assume that the Society could plot the area on its own, then the plotted area would be less. Apart from this, in the year 1992 the total demand was for a sum of Rs.3,53,27,649/- despite some deposits by the Complainant. Thereafter in 1998 the demand was for a sum of Rs.3,46,86,430/- ignoring the deposits made by the Complainant. As against this, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.4,40,81,389 [Rs.1,85,40,000 from 18.12.1992 to 16.4.2001 + Rs.1,73,00,000, as per the directions of this Commission + Rs.82,41,389, the amount of compensation on account of land acquisition which was retained by the GDA). Hence, the Complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.3,58,40,000/- (Rs.1,85,40,000 + Rs.1,73,00,000) against the demand of Rs.3,53,27,649/- which is much more than the amount demanded by the GDA.
Despite this, Mr. Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate submitted vehemently that the Complainant is required to deposit Rs.14,50,28,192/- which includes compound interest upto 31st December, 2005, with the GDA.
In our view this demand of the GDA is totally imaginary and smacks oblique motive. On 12.2.2001 the demand by the GDA was only Rs.2,51,30,821/-. Yet, it is contended that the Society is required to pay more than Rs.14 Crores. Further, no rules are produced to establish that before delivering the possession of the developed area, the Complainant was required to pay the amount with compound interest. In our view, such demand and contention is unjustified. In the letter dated 14.8.1992, it is specifically stated that the Complainant was required to construct over the land before 29th June, 1997. This would establish that the GDA was required to hand over the possession to the Complainant in 1992 for construction of houses. In case the possession was delivered and, if there was any default in paying the installment, the Complainant could have been asked to pay the interest. That has not been done in the present case.
(d). In our view, for delay in delivering the possession of the land to the society, the society is entitled to recover compensation, i.e. to say, interest on the amount deposited by it. Therefore, presuming that the GDA is entitled to recover any interest on the installments granted by the GDA, then also the GDA is required to pay interest by way of compensation for the delayed delivery of physical possession of the land, and, in such set of circumstances, there would be set off, because by not delivering possession of the land, the Complainant Society is made to suffer for years, and for this delay, the Complainant can claim damages from the GDA. Not only this, the GDA has also not produced on record any rules/circular to contend that interest on the instalment amount was required to be paid by the Complainant in case of failure to deposit the amount as stated vide letter dated 21st July, 1999.
In these set of circumstances, it would be totally unjust and inequitable to direct the Complainant to pay any further sum by way of interest on the development charges demanded by the GDA.
(e). Mr.Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the GDA is prepared to refund the land acquisition compensation and the amount deposited by the Complainant with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. as demanded by the GDA for its claim.
This submission hardly behoves the statutory body. Such statutory bodies are constituted for the development of planned construction of houses in the city/town by providing residence to the down-trodden, middle class and others, and not for doing business with the acquired land. Statutory Body is not expected to take advantage of rising market value of the land. The land was to be developed for the benefit of the Complainant and others. Because there is rise in the market price the GDA cannot ask for return of the land from others also.
(f). Further, it is to be stated that the GDA has handed over the possession of the land wherein there is encroachment. This has been specifically stated in the Panchnama which was prepared at the time of delivery of the possession on 29.10.2005 and the same reads as under:
Possession taken as per above said measurement under this condition that the GDA will remove the unauthorised occupant from the said land. The land is undeveloped and uneven.
Hence, the learned Counsel for the Complainant filed an application for a direction to the GDA for constructing a fence to cover the land at the cost of the society. The GDA is avoiding it for reasons best known to its officers. It is to be stated that when the possession of the land was delivered to the Complainant there is a specific statement made by the Complainant that 'possession taken as per the above said measurement under the condition that the GDA will remove the unauthorised occupants from the said land and that the land is undeveloped and uneven'.
Considering the aforesaid position, if there is any encroachment on the land, the same is required to be removed by the GDA. In any case, if required the officers of the GDA have to assist the Complainant for covering the land by appropriate fence.
(g). Learned Counsel Mr.Hansaria submitted that the society is required to file affidavits of its members stating that they are not possessing any houses in the territory of Shahdara, Delhi and Ghaziabad, as stated in the letter dated 14th August, 1992, and that is not done.
This contention is disputed by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, as it has lost its relevance, as on today. It holds its relevance, had the land in question been allotted within a reasonable time from the date of acquisition of the Complainant's land. From the date of acquisition till the date of handing over the possession of the land, i.e. 25.8.2005, around 15 years have passed. Can it be expected from the members of the Society to be homeless, for such a long period? In any circumstances, after the plots are allotted to the members of the society, it would be open to the GDA to verify from the Society whether the members are possessing any plot or house in the territories mentioned above, only if there are such rules and regulations framed by the GDA for allotment of such land. In the light of the above discussion, this contention does not require further consideration.
In the result, we would reiterate that this case illustrates how and the manner in which Public Authority can harass a common man and such behaviour on the part of the Public Authority could degenerate into storehouse of inaction leading to breeding corruption. Again it is to be stated that if the Complainant were a common man and not a Society, he would have succumbed to the pressure of undesirable functioning of the officers of the GDA and would not have fought out this litigation. It is to be highlighted that without delivering actual physical possession of the land, the Society was directed to complete the construction before the end of June 1997. Thereafter, the Society was continuously harassed by the GDA by demanding different amounts without giving exact calculations which were sought by the Society.
In this view of the matter, this complaint is allowed and it is directed that:
40. I
(i). Within a period of 60 days from today, the GDA shall give clear title and shall execute the necessary documents for the land of which possession is given to the Complainant. If there is any unauthorised occupant, that shall be removed by the GDA within a period of 60 days from the date of this order.
It would be the personal responsibility of the Secretary of the GDA to implement the aforesaid directions
(ii). the claim of the GDA to recover interest on the sum of Rs.3,53,27,649/- is unjustifiable, and, therefore, the same is rejected;
(iii). for the unusual harassment to the Complainant the GDA shall pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) as compensation to the Complainant. It would be open to the GDA to recover the same from the officers as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority (supra).
26. The Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, GDA, for its implementation.