State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shaheen Akhtar vs L.D.A. on 29 May, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. CC/190/2016 ( Date of Filing : 22 Jul 2016 ) 1. Shaheen Akhtar R/O Prayag Bhawn Near Alankar Talkies Murad Ali Lane Distt, Lucknow ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. L.D.A. Vice Chancellor Administrative Ofice Gipin Khand Gomtinagar Lucknow ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 29 May 2023 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW COMPLAINT NO. 190 OF 2016 Shaheen Akhtar, R/o Prayag Bhawan Near Alankar Talkies Murad Ali Lane, District Lucknow ...Complainant Vs. M/s Lucknow Development Authority Through its Vice Chancellor Administrative Office, Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow ...Opposite Party BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Sri Gyanendra Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate. Dated : 09-06-2023 JUDGMENT MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by Shaheen Akhtar against the opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority with the following prayers:-
Direct the opposite party to make a registered sale deed in favour of complainant on the same amount as quoted and agreed at the time of lottery after deducting the 2% of the rest 75% of the total cost of the flat, at once.
Direct the party to pay a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- for the financial losses suffered by the complainant because of sheer negligence, delay and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party;
Direct the opposite party to pay conveyance charges Rs.2,00,000/- and the complainant is also liable to be compensated for the family members financial loss of Rs.5,00,000/-.
:2:Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for compensation for mental agony and physical trauma suffered by the complainant and his family; and Rs.20,00,000/- for loss in reputation.
Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the cost of complainant, and/or Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the opposite party being involved in the housing activities, advertised for various affordable schemes in the various areas of the Lucknow city. The opposite party started its project of building flats/apartments at Sector-P, Kanpur Road, Mansarover Scheme, Lucknow with the name of apartment as "Sunrise Apartment". The complainant applied for one 2BHK flat in the aforesaid project of the opposite party. The project booklet specifically stated that the project would be completed in 24 months and will be provided to the allottees in 21 months from the date of allotment.
It has been alleged by the complainant in his complaint that his name was selected in lottery and the Flat was allotted on 23-12-2010 and the Property Allotment Letter was prepared on 12-01-2011 and was despatched to the complainant on 17-01-2011, in which the final payment amount of the allotted flat to pay was quoted Rs.21,28,000/- till 25-04-2011. The project booklet also stated that benefit would be provided at the rate of 5% or 2%, as the case may be, to those allottees who pay the rest 75% amount of the flat as quoted in the booklet. The complainant opted for onetime payment and paid on time but no discount was given to him as per the scheme.
It has been stated by the complainant in his complaint that as per the demand in the property allotment letter the complainant had paid Rs.3,36,000/- on 11-04-2011 and Rs.17,92,000/- on 19-04-2011 to the opposite party as final payment. The flat was to be handed over to the complainant till 23-09-2012 but no possession has been given by the date fixed or till filing of the instant complaint. No notice or information was ever given to the complainant for such a long and unnecessary delay.
:3:The total cost of the flat was Rs.22,40,000/- and the entire amount was paid in full and final option and inspite of this now the opposite party is demanding more money as the cost of project has risen, due to their delay. The same cannot be demanded by the opposite party.
It has been further stated by the complainant in his complaint that a letter of Final Account Report dated 31-01-2016 has been sent by the opposite party through which an amount of Rs.3,15,357/- is shown outstanding, whereas the truth is that the complainant has paid all the cost of the flat quoted in the project booklet and as per their demand within time and Rs.1,71,935/- as other charges. The complainant has to keep his family on rent and had to suffer unnecessary loss due to sheer negligence and deficiency in services of the opposite party. Due to negligence of the opposite party the complainant has to pay unnecessary bank interest on the property, which he can neither utilize nor can gain any benefit.
It has been alleged by the complainant in his complaint that the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on the date of incident i.e. 23-12-2010 and thereafter when despite all efforts from the complainant's side neither the possession of the flat has been given to the complainant nor has the amount been refunded yet. The cause of action is still continuing and the same is rendering him unable to carry out his normal works and profession. Thus, the present complaint is within limitation. The claim filed by the complainant is well above the limit of Rs.20 lacs and below the limit of Rs.1 crore, which is statutorily required. This Commission has the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.
The complainant has filed the following documents in support of the complaint.
Annexure No.01 - True photocopy of the concerned advertisement.
Annexure No.02 - The true copy of the form and draft details as required.
Annexure No.03 - True copy of the Project Booklet.
Annexure No.04 - True copy of the Property Allotment Letter.
Annexure No.05 - True copy of the details of amount paid to the opposite party.
Annexure No.06 - The true copy of the letter of Final Account Report dated 31-01-2016.
The opposite party Lucknow Development Authority has filed the written statement against the complaint and denied the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint.
It is submitted by the opposite party in its written statement that the complainant has filed the present complaint on baseless allegations against the opposite party as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, as such the same is liable to be dismissed at this juncture.
It has been stated by the opposite party in its written statement that in Para 4.1 of the Registration Booklet it was clearly mentioned that in case of making full payment within 45 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter, a rebate of 5% shall be given over the 75% of sale amount but in present case the complainant has not deposited the full amount within 45 days. The complainant had chosen to pay under the payment mode of cash payment as per the application submitted by him. As per rules the payment of remaining amount under the cash payment scheme is accepted without any interest, within 90 days. In pursuance thereof the allotment letter dated 25-04-2011 was issued to him for depositing Rs.21,28,000/- within 90 days after deducting Rs.1,12,000/- already deposited by the complainant, out of total estimated value of Rs.22,40,000/-.
It is most relevant to point out here that as per Para 4.2 of the booklet it has been mentioned that under self finance scheme, the applicants depositing all instalments within time will get a rebate of 2% over the 75% of the sale value. In present case the applicant has chosen to pay under cash purchase scheme.
It has been stated by the opposite party in its written statement that due to the agitation, dharna and pradarshan of the farmers (Kisan Union) the work of the construction was hurdled and stopped for a long period The said reason of delay was beyond the control of the opposite party.
:5:Serious efforts were made by the opposite party to restart the work of construction and there was no negligence.
It has been submitted that in para/note-I of the registration booklet it has been specifically mentioned that the cost of Rs.22,40,000/- of the concerned property was only estimated value and the same could be escalated to 5% over/above the estimated value and under note 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 the chargeable amount under various heads has also been mentioned. The letter dated 30-12-2015 was sent to the complainant for depositing the total amount after enhancement of cost plus above said expenses/funds mentioned in the registration booklet, hence there is no illegality or deficiency on part of the opposite party in asking to deposit the remaining amount for registration of the flat. So far the payment of bank interest is concerned, it has been repeatedly submitted that there had been no fault of opposite party as the circumstances were beyond its control. The complainant has made baseless calculation for illegally fetching the amount from the opposite party.
It has been further stated by the opposite party in its written statement that in Para 11.1 of the registration booklet it is clearly printed that in case of not getting the possession of the flat within 21 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter the allottee will have an option to get the refund of entire amount deposited by him alaongwith simple interest of 4% per annum and no other claim except it will be entertained. In this case the complainant has not initiated/applied for getting the refund of same and the complainant has claimed imaginary, exaggerated and baseless amount. The complainant is not entitled to claim any loss or compensation from the opposite party.
No cause of action has been accrued to the complainant to prefer the instant complaint on false and baseless allegations against the opposite party. The demand raised by the opposite party for depositing the amount as indicated in letter dated 30-12-2015 is purely in terms of the conditions printed in registration booklet and by submitting the form and depositing the money the complainant has agreed with those terms and conditions and entered into the contract. The opposite party has not demanded any amount except to the said schedule.
:6:It has been further stated by the opposite party in its written statement that the final calculation sheet vide letter no. 444/D.S.(K)/15 dated 30-12-2015 was sent to the complainant for making the payment of the following amount for registration of flat.
Rs.1,70,000/-, the difference of actual cost and estimated value.
Rs.48,200/- for Corpus Fund.
Rs.42,157/- for maintenance.
Rs.15,000/- for Electricity Charges.
Rs.15,000/- for Gas Pipe Line Rs.1,50,000/- for Generator Charges.
Rs.10,000/- for Telephone and Cable - Total Rs3,15,357/- and Rs.42,673/- as Freehold Charges for Registry.
Rs.5,000/- for Water Sever Charges Rs.500/- other expenses.
Rs.50,000/- Parking Charges Rs.73,762/- for Service Tax - Total Rs.1,71,935/-.
All the above charges were demanded from the complainant in pursuance of the terms/conditions mentioned in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Rules 2.5, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and Rules 10, 11.1, 11.2 of the registration booklet. The work of the construction is complete and the complainant may approach with the required stamp papers after depositing aforesaid amount with applicable interest for the period of last nine months after the issuance of letter dated 30-12-2015.
In support of the written statement the opposite party has filed the following documents:-
Annexure No. 1 and Annexure No.2 - True copy of the Registration Booklet and Application Form of the complainant showing the above said conditions.
Annexure No.3 - True copy of the communication made by the officers of the opposite party to the Administrative authorities and the news paper cutting.
Annexure No.4 - Final Account Report as on 31-01-2016.
The complainant has also filed the rejoinder to the written statement filed by the opposite party and has denied the version of the opposite party, which is available on record.:7:
The complainant has filed the evidence in the shape of affidavit which is available on record and we have also perused the evidence.
The opposite party Lucknow Development Authority has also filed the Affidavit of Evidence which is available on record and we have perused the same.
We have heard Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party and perused the entire records very carefully.
The instant complaint is pending since last more than seven years and is heard at least on twenty different dates. The detailed orders are regularly passed by this Court noting the submissions of respective Counsels and lastly on 29-05-2023 after hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties this Court has passed the following detailed order mentioning the orders passed by this Court previously:-
29-05-2023 :-
पुकार करवाई गई। परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री ज्ञानेन्द्र सिंह तथा विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री रजनीश कुमार सिंह उपस्थित हैं।
प्रस्तुत परिवाद विगत 07 वर्षों से अधिक समय से लम्बित है। दिनांक 20-04-2023 को निम्न विस्तृत आदेश पारित किया गया था :-
20-04-2023 The instant complaint is pending since last more than seven years and is heard at least on twenty different dates. The detailed orders are regularly passed by this Court noting the submissions of respective Counsels and lastly on 12-01-2023 the following detailed order has been passed which reads as under:-
"12-01-2023 The instant complaint has been filed before this Court long back in the year 2016. Since then it is pending and was listed before this Court at least on more than twenty occasions. Several orders are passed by this Court on dates fixed. One Sri Abhay Kumar, Counsel for the opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority put in appearance after a gap of more than one and half years and sought time for placing the evidence on record which was granted to him, however, the evidence has not been filed by Sri Abhay Kumar.:8:
The complainant has already filed the evidence. Vide order dated 11-03-2019 again the time was granted to the Counsel for the Development Authority to file the evidence while fixing the date being 11-07-2019. The affidavit and evidence has been filed on the next date fixed and the fresh date has been fixed as 05-11-2019.
On 05-11-2019 the new Counsel Sri Anshuman Sharma put appearance on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority and filed his Vakalatnama. The date for final hearing, therefore, has been fixed being 07-02-2020. On account of non appearance of the Counsel for the opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority, the case was adjourned on various dates. The Counsel for the complainant also sought adjournment, therefore, the case was adjourned on 08-02-2021.
Thereafter at least ten dates are fixed when the case is adjourned with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. Lastly on 23-11-2022 when this Court has gone through the paper book and material available on record then directed to list this case within first 20 cases on 13-12-2022.
On 13-12-2022 another new Counsel appeared for Lucknow Development Authority namely Sri Yogesh Tiwari. Counsel for the respective parties were heard and a detailed order has been passed by which this Court appointed two young Advocates namely Miss. Fuhar Gupta and Shataxi Shukla as Advocate Commissioners to visit the disputed/allotted property in question and to submit their report alongwith photographs.
Learned Advocate Commissioners have submitted their report alongwith various photographs of the flat and nearby places as well as project which are taken on record and on the next date fixed after hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties the following detailed order dated 22-12-2022 has been passed:-
"22-12-2022 :-
पुकार करवाई गई। प्रस्तुत परिवाद विगत लगभग 07 वर्षों से लम्बित है। कम से कम 30 तिथियों पर इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख सूचीबद्ध हुआ। पूर्व में विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण की ओर से श्री अभय कुमार अधिवक्ता उपस्थित होते थे जिनके द्वारा अपेक्षित साक्ष्य अनेकों अवसर प्रदान किए जाने के उपरान्त भी प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया। दिनांक 11-03-2019 को निम्न आदेश पारित किया गया :-
'' 11.03.2019 परिवादिनी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री ज्ञानेंद्र सिंह के मुंशी उपस्थित आये। विपक्षी की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री अभय कुमार उपस्थित आये। परिवादिनी की ओर से परिवादिनी शाहीन अख्तर का शपथ पत्र :9: साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत किया गया। परिवादिनी का साक्ष्य समाप्त किया जा चुका है, परन्तु अभी अन्तिम सुनवाई नहीं हुई है। अत: परिवादिनी द्वारा प्रस्तुत शपथ पत्र साक्ष्य में ग्रहण किया जाता है। विपक्षी अपना साक्ष्य निश्चित तिथि तक प्रस्तुत करे। दि0 11.07.2019 साक्ष्य विपक्षी हेतु तिथि नियत हो। '' विपक्षी को साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने हेतु अन्तिम रूप से निश्चित तिथि दिनांक 11-07-2019 सुनिश्चित की गई। तदोपरान्त विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा सशपथ पत्र साक्ष्य दाखिल किया गया। विपक्षी की ओर से अगली निश्चित तिथि दिनांक 05-11-2019 को नवीन अधिवक्ता श्री अंशुमान शर्मा द्वारा वकालतनामा प्रस्तुत किया गया। कई तिथियों पर श्री अंशुमान शर्मा अधिवक्ता भी अनुपस्थित थे। तदोपरान्त गुणदोष के आधार पर परिवाद निर्णीत किए जाने का आदेश दिनांक 08-02-2021 को पारित किया गया। निश्चित तिथियों पर उपभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्तागण अनुपस्थित थे अथवा समय न होने के कारण अथवा उभय पक्ष के अधिवक्तागण की सहमति से परिवाद की सुनवाई स्थगित की गई। तदोपरान्त दिनांक 13-12-2022 को निम्न आदेश पारित किया गया :-
'' दिनांक- 13.12.2022 पुकार की गयी। परिवादी की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री ज्ञानेन्द्र सिंह उपस्थित हुए। विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण की ओर से विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री योगेश तिवारी उपस्थित हुए। उभय-पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्ता द्व्य को विस्तार से सुना गया। उभय पक्ष को अपना साक्ष्य एवं लिखित कथन प्रस्तुत किये जाने हेतु अनेकों अवसर प्रदान किये जा चुके हैं।
परिवादी शाहीन अख्तर द्वारा विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण से एक रिहायशी फ्लैट संख्या- सी-403 " सनराइस अपार्टमेंट " सेक्टर- (P) कानपुर रोड मानसरोवर स्कीम, लखनऊ के अन्तर्गत प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु आवेदन किया गया। आवेदन प्रस्तुत करते समय योजना के बाउचर में उल्लिखित तथ्यों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए परिवादी/आवंटी द्वारा कुल धनराशि 22,40,000/-रू० विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण के पक्ष में दिनांक 19-04-2011 को जमा की गयी। विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा उपरोक्त प्रस्तावित योजना/फ्लैट पूर्ण कर फ्लैट प्राप्त कराने की अवधि 02 वर्ष नियत की गयी अर्थात प्रस्तावित योजना के अन्तर्गत विपक्षी लखनऊ :10: विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा परिवादी को आवंटित उपरोक्त फ्लैट संख्या सी-403 का कब्जा दिनांक 23-12-2012 तक प्राप्त कराया जाना था।-
निर्विवादित रूप से उपरोक्त फ्लैट का निर्माण अत्यन्त धीमी गति से होने के कारण विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा 05 वर्ष की अवधि व्यतीत होने के बाद परिवादी को दिनांक 15-12-2015 को कब्जा उपलब्ध कराने हेतु पत्र जारी किया गया जिसकी प्रति पत्रावली के संलग्न-06 के रूप में पृष्ठ संख्या-63 पर उपलब्ध है।
उक्त पत्र से व्यथित होकर विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा प्रस्तावित एकांउट रिपोर्ट के अनुसार मांगी गयी धनराशि/बाकी धनराशि को इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख प्रस्तुत परिवाद के माध्यम से परिवादी द्वारा चुनौती दी गयी।
परिवादी शाहीन अख्तर स्वयं इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख उपस्थित हुए। पूर्व में भी वे उपस्थित होते रहे हैं जिनके द्वारा इस न्यायालय द्वारा पूछे जाने पर यह अवगत कराया गया कि उपरोक्त सनराइस अपार्टमेंट " सेक्टर- (P) कानपुर रोड मानसरोवर स्कीम, लखनऊ के अन्तर्गत निर्मित फ्लैट्स की दशा अत्यन्त दयनीय है तथा निर्माण के पश्चात से आज की तिथि तक उसमें अधिक से अधिक 50 प्रतिशत आवंटियों द्वारा ही कब्जा प्राप्त किया गया है अर्थात 50 प्रतिशत फ्लैट आज भी खाली हैं। उनके द्वारा यह भी अवगत कराया गया कि वास्तव में विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा अपेक्षित अनेकों आवश्यक चीजों/सुविधाओं को आज तक भी प्रदान नहीं कराया गया है। उक्त स्कीम के सम्बन्ध में अनेकों विवाद प्राधिकरण के सम्मुख आज तक लम्बित हैं जिनका निराकरण प्राधिकरण द्वारा नहीं किया गया है। इस हेतु परिवाद इस आयोग के सम्मुख प्रस्तुत किया गया है।
परिवादी के उपरोक्त कथन का विरोध विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण की ओर से उपस्थित विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री योगेश तिवारी द्वारा किया गया तथा उनके द्वारा इस न्यायालय का ध्यान पत्रावली पर प्रस्तुत लिखित कथन दिनांक 21-09-2016 के संलग्नक-1 की ओर आकर्षित किया गया जिसका परिशीलन करने हेतु न्यायालय से आग्रह किया गया।:11:
उपरोक्त संलग्नक विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा जारी विवरण पुस्तिका को विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा जारी किया गया है जिसका परिशीलन एवं परीक्षण मेरे द्वारा किया गया। विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा उपरोक्त फ्लैट के कब्जे के अन्तर्गत विवरण पत्रिका के सीरियल नं०11 पर निम्न तथ्य उद्धरत किये गये:-
11-1 फ्लैट्स के सम्पूर्ण मूल्य व अन्य व्ययों के भुगतान के उपरान्त निबन्धन निष्पादन के साथ ही आवंटी को फ्लैट का कब्जा दिया जाएगा। आवंटन तिथि से 21 माह में फ्लैट का कब्जा न दिये जाने की स्थिति में आवंटी को अपनी जमा धनराशि पर 04 प्रतिशत साधारण ब्याज के साथ अपनी ब्याज सहित जमा धनराशि वापस लेने का विकल्प होगा परन्तु इसके अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई दावा स्वीकार नहीं होगा।
11-2 निबन्धन में आने वाला समस्त व्यय एवं स्टैम्प पेपर का व्यय आवंटी द्वारा स्वयं वहन किया जाएगा।
11-3 प्राधिकरण द्वारा सूचित अवधि में फ्लैट का कब्जा न लेने पर आवंटी को नियमानुसार अनुरक्षण शुल्क देना होगा तत्पश्चात निबन्धन से विलम्बतम तीन माह तक कब्जा न लेने पर उपाध्यक्ष लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण को फ्लैट का आवंटन निरस्त करने का अधिकार होगा।
समस्त तथ्यों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए यह न्यायालय प्रस्तुत वाद में विवादों को सही रूप से आंकलित करते हुए एडवोकेट कमिशनर नियुक्त कर निरीक्षण कराया जाना उपयुक्त प्रतीत होता है। तदनुसार स्थल निरीक्षण हेतु एडवोकेट कमिशनर के रूप में सुश्री फुहार गुप्ता, एडवोकेट, मो० नं० 9793839933 एवं सुश्री शताक्षी शुक्ला, एडवोकेट मो० नं० 6392613986 द्व्य को नियुक्त किये जाने हेतु आदेशित किया जाता है।
सुश्री फुहार गुप्ता एवं सुश्री शताक्षी शुक्ला एडवोकेट कमिशनर द्व्य को ऊपर उल्लिखित फ्लैट संख्या- सी-403 " सनराइस अपार्टमेंट " सेक्टर- (P) कानपुर रोड मानसरोवर स्कीम, लखनऊ योजना का स्थल निरीक्षण किये जाने हेतु नामित किया जाता है जिनके द्वारा उपरोक्त फ्लैट का स्थल निरीक्षण दिनांक 17-12-2022 को पूर्वाहन 11.00 बजे किया जावेगा। विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री योगेश तिवारी द्वारा इस आदेश की :12: प्रति दो कार्यदिवस में प्राधिकरण के उपाध्यक्ष एवं सचिव को प्राप्त करायी जावेगी जिनके द्वारा इस न्यायालय द्वारा नियुक्त एडवोकेट कमिशनर्स को स्थल निरीक्षण के सम्बन्ध में समस्त आवश्यक जानकारी एवं सुविधाएं प्राप्त करायी जावेंगी तथा किसी जिम्मेदार अधिकारी को स्थल निरीक्षण के समय उपस्थित रहने हेतु आदेशित किया जावेगा साथ ही एडवोकेट कमिशनर्स को विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा फीस के रूप में 15,000/-रू० प्रति एडवोकेट कमिशनर एवं अन्य खर्चे के रूप में 2,000/-रू० प्रति एडवोकेट कमिशनर अर्थात कुल 17,000/-रू० प्रति एडवोकेट कमिशनर दिनांक-16-12-2022 तक प्राप्त कराया जावेगा।
एडवोकेट कमिशनर्स द्वारा स्थल निरीक्षण के समय यथा सम्भव आवश्यक फोटोग्राफ्स इस न्यायालय के परिशीलन हेतु अपनी रिपोर्ट के साथ प्रस्तुत किये जाएंगे। एडवोकेट कमिशनर्स द्वारा अपनी रिपोर्ट की एक-एक प्रति पक्षकारों के विद्वान अधिवक्ताद्व्य को दिनांक 20-12-2022 तक प्राप्त कराकर इस न्यायालय के कार्यालय में प्रस्तुत किया जावेगा। अगली निश्चित तिथि पर विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण के किसी वरिष्ठ अधिकारी की उपस्थिति हेतु आदेशित किया जाता है। तदनुसार प्रस्तुत वाद को पुन: सुनवाई हेतु दिनांक 22-12-2022 को प्रथम 10 वादों में सूचीबद्ध किया जावे। '' दिनांक 13-12-2022 के आदेश के अनुपालन में इस न्यायालय द्वारा नियुक्त एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय सुश्री फुहार गुप्ता एवं सुश्री शताक्षी शुक्ला द्वारा स्थल निरीक्षण दिनांक 17-12-2022 को परिवादिनी एवं परिवादिनी के अधिवक्ता की उपस्थिति में एवं विपक्षी प्राधिकरण की ओर से श्री बलराम अनु सचिव लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण एवं श्री अजय गोयल सहायक अभियन्ता की उपस्थिति में किया गया। दौरान् निरीक्षण उपरोक्त पक्षकारों की उपस्थिति में एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा न सिर्फ परिवादिनी को आबंटित फ्लैट से सम्बन्धित एवं फ्लैट व उसके आस-पास के चित्र लिए गए वरन् विपक्षी प्राधिकरण की उपरोक्त सनराइज अपार्टमेण्ट स्कीम का विस्तृत रूप से स्थल निरीक्षण किया गया। स्थल निरीक्षण के उपरान्त एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा अपनी निरीक्षण आख्या इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख सचित्र प्रस्तुत की गई। एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त निरीक्षण आख्या को इस आदेश में निम्नवत् उद्धृत किया जाना उपयुक्त प्रतीत होता है :-:13:
"INSPECTION REPORT That Advocate Commissioners Fuhar Gupta and Shataxi Shukla appointed by this Hon'ble Commission in complaint case no. CC/190/2016 vide order dated 13.12.2022 reached the site of inspection on 17.12.2022 at 10.50 a.m. Further, the following persons were present on the day (Saturday) of site inspection :
Sl.No. Name Designation Time of Arrival
1.
Mr. Shaheen Akhtar Complainant 11.00 a.m.
2. Mr. Gyanendra Singh Counsel for complainant 10.55 a.m.
3. Mr. Balram Under Secretary (LDA) Post 11.15 a.m.
4. Mr. Ajay Goyal Assistant Engineer (LDA) Post 11.15 a.m.
5. Ms. Fuhar Gupta Advocate Commissioner 10.50 a.m.
6. Ms. Shataxi Shukla Advocate Commissioner 10.50 a.m. That in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Commission, the Advocate Commissioners along with the aforementioned parties started the inspection at 11.40 am on 17.12.2022 in respect of physical features of property/flat bearing number C-403, Chitra, Sunrise Apartment, Sector P, Mansarovar Yojna, Lucknow, in question.
The Complainant provided the copy of complaint and brochure of the project (Sunrise Apartments, Mansarovar Yojana, Sector-P, Kanpur Road, Lucknow) at the time of site inspection. No such documents were provided by the concerned officials of LDA. The only document provided by LDA officials is the completion certificate dated 12.11.2018.
After going through the complaint copy and brochure/booklet, the complainant and LDA's officials/representatives were called upon to show the flat-in-question and the society, so as to ascertain its development/present status. The flat-in-question and the entire society were shown to us.
That by the inspection following findings were recorded by the Advocate Commissioners in respect of the flat-in-question :
1. The walls of the flat were damp. There were cracks in plaster and at some places, it was missing.
2. There were no electrical switches inside the house. The wires were left open and hanging, protruding from the walls.
3. Window glasses were missing in some of the windows.:14:
4. The bathrooms did not have any fitting like toilet seat, wash basin etc.
5. The tiles in the bathroom were found to be broken.
6. The flat-in-question was found in the most deplorable condition.
The complainant brought several discrepancies into the knowledge of the Advocate Commissioners who examined the same and found the following discrepancies :
1. As per the brochure, vehicle parking was to be given with the flat, but in the present case, neither there is any parking area for the tower in which the Complainant has been allotted a unit nor has any vehicle parking space been allotted to the Complainant. It was informed that since no parking has been allotted to anybody, anyone can park his/her car anywhere they wish to.
2. It was also observed that Basement parking had capacity for 64 cars only and the same was for 3 bhk flats owners only, whereas Complainant is the owner of 2 bhk flat and has no option to even opt for basement parking.
3. As per the brochure, one toilet was to have Indian W.C seat and other one was to have European W.C seat along with low level cistern, mirror, soap dish and Towel rail and one wash basin each but in the present case all of such specifications are missing.
4. Also, rain water harvesting as stated in the brochure has not been provided by the opposite party/LDA.
5. Furthermore, it has been mentioned in the brochure in its Clause 2.2 that for the purpose of security and safety, there will be boundary wall on all four sides but upon site inspection, it was found that the boundary wall on the west side was missing.
That upon further inspection following findings were recorded by the Advocate Commissioners in respect of the site project :
1. It was seen that some construction by the opposite party, of new road at the east side of the apartment on the project site was in progress.
2. As per the brochure, there was supposed to be a landscape adjacent to the tower (Block-5) in which the Complainant has been allotted a unit but, at site during the inspection it was found out that such landscape was missing.
3. As per the brochure, there was supposed to be Block-6 opposite to the tower (Block-5) in which the Complainant has been allotted a unit but, at site during the inspection it was found out that a community centre was built in place of Block-6.:15:
4. Several landscapes as mentioned and shown in the brochure, were missing at site.
5. During site inspection, we have got informed by the RWA as well as bare perusal of the brochure clearly enunciates that that one extra tower got erected at the place of the community centre and park shown in the brochure. On being enquired about such changes on the project site, no satisfactory answer/papers were given/shown by the opposite party/LDA representatives except a completion certificate dated 12.11.2018 and layout plan.
6. It was also seen on the project site, that the community centre is not in accordance with the brochure as the same neither had any gym nor recreational room containing table tennis or carom board equipments nor did the toilets have any water supply.
7. High tension wires and fire safety room maintained incautiously. As the wires were drowned in the watery ditch of the room, leaking from the side walls. Moreover, they have never tested fire safety equipment's by any means.
That this inspection report has been made after examination of the flat-in-question by both the Advocate Commissioners appointed by this Hon'ble Commission vide order dated 13.12.2022. The inspection was carried out on 17.12.2022 in presence of both the parties and counsel for the Complainant. Hence, the inspection was concluded by the Advocate Commissioners.
Fees of the Advocate Commissioners has not been paid by the opposite party till date.
That the copy of the parties present at the time of inspection is being annexed in the report with their respective signatures.
The brochure, photographs of the site inspection, completion certificate, layout plan are being attached along with this report."
उपरोक्त निरीक्षण आख्या की प्रतियॉं पक्षकारों के अधिवक्तागण को एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा प्राप्त कराई गईं। निरीक्षण आख्या के परिशीलन एवं एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा प्रस्तुत चित्रों के परिशीलन से यह स्पष्ट रूप से प्रथम दृष्ट्या पाया जाता है कि विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा उपरोक्त सनराइज अपार्टमेण्ट स्कीम में आबंटियों को अपेक्षित सुविधाऐं कतई प्रदान नहीं की गई हैं। मूल रूप से कुल 296 फ्लैट निर्मित किए जाने का उल्लेख ब्रोशर में किया गया जबकि वास्तव में 296 के स्थान पर 560 फ्लैट निर्मित किए गए। उपरोक्त अविधिक कार्य की विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा कदापि किसी भी स्तर पर आबंटियों को जानकारी प्रदान न किया जाना स्पष्टत: पाया जाता है। एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा :16: प्रस्तुत निरीक्षण आख्या में एवं उनके द्वारा न्यायालय को सुनवाई के दौरान् अवगत कराया गया कि प्रस्तावित योजना में कुल 08 पार्क विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा आबंटियों के प्रयोग एवं बच्चों के खेल-कूद के लिए सुरक्षित एवं अंकित किए गए जिनके स्थान पर वर्तमान में एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा निरीक्षण के दौरान् मात्र 01 पार्क आबंटियों के प्रयोग हेतु पाया गया अर्थात् 07 पार्कों की स्थिति बदलते हुए उपरोक्त प्रस्तावित पार्कों में अवैधानिक रूप से निर्माण किया गया एवं अपेक्षित ग्रीन बैल्ट एरिया का उल्लंघन किया गया। आवश्यक सुविधाऐं जो ब्रोशर में उल्लिखित की गई थीं जिनको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आबंटियों द्वारा आबंटन के समय धनराशि जमा की गई थी, उन सुविधाओं को पूर्णत: समाप्त किया गया। बच्चों के खेलने तक का स्थान निर्माण में उपयोग किया गया।
यहॉं तक कि विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा उपरोक्त सनराइज अपार्टमेण्ट स्कीम का कम्प्लीशन सर्टिफिकेट, प्राधिकरण में उपरोक्त अवधि में कार्यरत अधीक्षण अभियन्ता श्री पी0सी0 पाण्डेय द्वारा दिनांक 12-11-2018 को जारी किया जाना बताया गया जिसकी प्रति एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा इस न्यायालय के कार्यालय में एक सप्ताह की अवधि में विविध प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ एवं अन्य विवरण उल्लिखित करते हुए प्रस्तुत की जावेगी। उभय पक्ष के अधिवक्तागण द्वय को भी इसकी प्रति प्राप्त कराई जावेगी।
विद्वान एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा यह भी तथ्य इस न्यायालय को अवगत कराया गया कि वास्तव में जो विद्युत आपूर्ति से सम्बन्धित केबिल हैं उन केबिलों के स्थान पर भी अनियमित रूप से पानी भरा पाया गया। वारट हार्वेस्टिंग वर्तमान में आर0डब्ल्यू0ए0 द्वारा ही कराई जा रही है। एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा निरीक्षण के दौरान् यह भी पाया गया कि विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा निरीक्षण की तिथि पर भी विभिन्न प्रकार के निर्माण कार्य की प्रक्रिया जारी थी।
तब प्रश्न यह उठता है कि कम्प्लीशन सर्टिफिकेट 04 वर्ष पूर्व किन परिस्थिति में और क्यों प्राधिकरण द्वारा जारी किया गया ?
प्रथम दृष्ट्या विपक्षी प्राधिकरण का उपरोक्त कार्य आबंटियों के सम्बन्ध में न सिर्फ धोखा-धड़ी है एवं उन्हें भ्रमित करना भी पाया जाता है।
:17:चूँकि विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के विद्वान अधिवक्ता एवं अनुसचिव श्री बलराम आज न्यायालय के सम्मुख उपस्थित हैं अत्एव उनकी उपस्थिति में निम्न आदेश पारित किया जाना उपयुक्त पाया जाता है :-
(क) प्रस्तुत प्रकरण से सम्बन्धित विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के कार्यालय की मूल पत्रावली विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के किसी वरिष्ठ अधिकारी द्वारा इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख परिशीलन हेतु प्रस्तुत की जावेगी।
(ख) एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा प्रस्तुत निरीक्षण आख्या की सचित्र प्रति जो कुल 30 पृष्ठों के साथ उपलब्ध है, विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के अनुसचिव श्री बलराम द्वारा विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के अध्यक्ष/अध्यक्षा को एक सप्ताह की अवधि में प्राप्त कराया जाना सुनिश्चित किया जावेगा। साथ ही एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त रिपोर्ट की प्रति विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के उपाध्यक्ष एवं सचिव/अपर सचिव को 03 कार्यदिवसों की अवधि में प्राप्त कराई जावेगी।
(ग) एडवोकेट कमिश्नर्स द्वय द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त निरीक्षण आख्या का सम्यक परिशीलन व परीक्षण करने के उपरान्त उपाध्यक्ष, लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण एवं सचिव, लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण द्वय द्वारा उपरोक्त सनराइज अपार्टमेण्ट स्कीम का स्थल निरीक्षण स्वयं एक सप्ताह की अवधि में सुनिश्चित किया जावेगा। तदनुसार उनके द्वारा इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख सशपथ पत्र एवं सचित्र अपनी आख्या/स्पष्टीकरण ऊपर उल्लिखित तथ्यों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए निर्माण की वर्तमान स्थिति की समुचित जानकारी प्राप्त कराते हएु प्रस्तुत की जावेगी। अगली निश्चित तिथि पर विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण के उपाध्यक्ष अथवा सचिव इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख उपस्थित होकर यथासम्भव सहयोग प्रदान कर प्रस्तुत अपील में उल्लिखित विवाद के सम्बन्ध में अपना पक्ष स्वयं एवं अपने अधिवक्ता के माध्यम से प्रस्तुत करेंगे।
तदनुसार उभय पक्ष की सहमति से प्रस्तुत अपील को इस पीठ (माननीय न्यायमर्ति श्री अशोक कुमार, अध्यक्ष) के सम्मुख अपरान्ह 02.15 बजे दिनांक 12-01-2023 को सूचीबद्ध किए जाने हेतु आदेशित किया जाता है।
परिवादिनी के अधिवक्ता द्वारा दौरान् बहस अवगत कराया गया कि परिवादिनी के अलावा लगभग सभी आबंटी उपरोक्त सनराइज :18: अपार्टमेण्ट योजना में अनेकों परिशानियों से ग्रसित हैं। तदनुसार यदि आबंटी/परिवादिनी कथित आर0डब्ल्यू0ए0 द्वारा अपना पक्ष इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख प्रस्तुत कराना चाहे तो अगली निश्चित तिथि की सूचना परिवादिनी के अधिवक्ता द्वारा उपरोक्त आर0डब्ल्यू0ए0 को एक सप्ताह में प्राप्त कराई जावे।"
In pursuance of the order dated 22-12-2022 today an affidavit has been filed by Sri Pawan Kumar Gangwar, Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow dated 12-01-2023. Alongwith the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Development Authority an inspection report dated 10-01-2023 has been enclosed/filed. The said report is necessary to be incorporated as part of this order.
पत्रांक - 628/VC/2023 निरीक्षण आख्या दिनांक-10/01/2023 मा0 राज्य उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग, उ0प्र0 में दाखिल परिवाद संख्या: 190/2016 शाहीन अख्तर बनाम लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण बावत फ्लैट सख्या: सी-403, सनराईज अपार्टमेन्ट, सेक्टर-पी, मानसरोवर योजना में पारित आदेश दिनांक 22.12.2022 के अनुपालन में अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा सचिव, अपर सचिव, विशेष कार्याधिकारी-अपार्टमेन्ट, अधिशासी अभियन्ता जोन-2 एवं अन्य सम्बन्धित अधिकारियों के साथ सनराईज अपार्टमेन्ट, सेक्टर-पी, मानसरोवर योजना, कानपुर रोड का दिनांक 07.01.2023 को स्थल निरीक्षण किया गया, जिसकी निरीक्षण आख्या निम्नवत् है:-
निरीक्षण आख्या उत्तरदायी अधिकारी का पदनाम निर्धारित समय
1. मा0 आयोग के आदेश के क्रम में फ्लैट संख्या: 403 का निरीक्षण किया गया। मा0 आयोग द्वारा पारित आदेश में नियुक्त अधिवक्ता कमिश्नर द्वारा निम्नलिखित कमियों का उल्लेख किया गया था:-
*The walls of the flat were damp. There were cracks in plaster and at some places, it was missing.
*There were no electrical switches inside the house. The Wires were left open and hanging, protruding from the walls.
*Window glasses were missing in some of the windows.
*The bathrooms did not have any fitting like toilet seat, washbasin etc. *The tiles in the bathroom were found to be broken.
*The flat-in-question was found in the most deplorable condition.
उपरोक्त कमियों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में समस्त सम्बन्धित को निर्देश दिये गये कि आवंटी द्वारा फ्लैट का निबंधन कराने के पश्चात एक सप्ताह में समस्त कमियों को दूर कराते हुए आवंटी को कब्जा दिये जाने की कार्यवाही निष्पादित करायी जाए।
1. अपर सचिव
2. प्रभारी अधिकारी-अपार्टमेन्ट
3. अधिशासी अभियन्ता-जोन 2 15 दिन 2 मा0 आयोग के आदेश को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए पूरे सनराईज अपार्टमेन्ट का भी निरीक्षण किया गया तथा अपार्टमेन्ट के आर.डब्लू.ए सदस्यों के साथ्ज्ञ भी संवाद स्थापित किया गया। आर.डब्लू.ए सदस्यों द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कि अभी तक अपार्टमेन्ट में ई.पी.बी.एक्स नहीं लगाया गया है, जबकि लगाने वाली एजेन्सी को लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा उसका भुगतान किया जा चुका है। सम्बन्धित अभियन्ता को निर्देश दिये गये हैं कि इन्टरकॉम लगाने का कार्य को तत्काल पूर्ण कराया जाए।
1. अपर सचिव
2. अधिशासी अभियन्ता जोन-2 01 माह
3. सनराईज अपार्टमेन्ट में निवास कर रहे रहवासियो द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कि सभी आवंटियो को पार्किंग आवंटित नहीं हुई है, जिससे पार्किंग की समस्या बनी रहती है। इस सम्बन्ध में प्रभारी अधिकारी-अपार्टमेन्ट को निर्देश दिये गये है कि सम्बन्धित अधिशासी अभियन्ता से समन्वय स्थापित कर जिन आवंटियो को पार्किंग आवंटित नहीं हुई है, उनको नियमानुसार आवंटन की कार्यवाही निष्पादित कराये जाने के निर्देश दिये गये।
1. अपर सचिव
2.प्रभारी अधिकारी-अपार्टमेन्ट
3. अधिशासी अभियन्ता जोन-2 01 माह
4. सनराईज अपार्टमेन्ट में निवास कर रहे रहवासियो द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कि अपार्टमेन्ट को कवर करने वाली बाउण्ड्रीवाल पर जलवायु विहार कालोनी के लोगो द्वारा प्राधिकरण द्वारा निर्मित बाउण्ड्रीवाल पर अपने मकान की दीवार बना ली गयी है, जिससे सनराईज अपार्टमेन्ट की बाउण्ड्री कुछ जगह पर समाप्त हो गयी है। इस सम्बन्ध में सम्बन्धित अधिशासी अभियन्ता एवं जोनल अधिकारी को समस्त बिन्दुओं पर जॉंच कर नियमानुसार तत्काल आवश्यक कार्यवाही 10 दिवस में पूर्ण कर अवगत कराये जाने के निर्देश दिये गये।
1. जोनल अधिकारी-जोन-2
2. अधि0 अभियन्ता जोन-2 10 दिन
5. अपार्टमेन्ट के निरीक्षण में लगी लिफ्ट का भी निरीक्षण किया गया तथा आवंटियो द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कि लिफ्ट के डक्ट में पानी भर जाता है, जिसके कारण आये दिन लिफ्ट खराब हो जाती है तथा अनहोनी की सम्भावना भी बनी रहती है। अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा अपार्टमेन्ट में कार्य कर रही कन्सट्रक्शन कम्पनी इन्दू कन्सट्रक्शन के प्रतिनिधि से जानकारी ली गयी, जिसके द्वारा कोई संतोषजनक जवाब नहीं दिया गया, जिस पर कड़ी फटकार लगाते हुए जल्द से जल्द ठीक कराने के निर्देश दिये गये है। अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा लिफ्ट के रख-रखाव हेतु पूर्व में निर्देश दिये गये हैं कि विद्युत/यांत्रिक अनुभाग द्वारा समस्त लिफ्टो का रख-रखाव का कार्य उनके द्वारा देखा जायेगा परन्तु यह खेदजनक है। अधिशासी अभियन्ता-वि0/यॉं0 के द्वारा लिफ्ट का निरीक्षण नहीं किया गया और न ही उसको ठीक कराने के सम्बन्धित में कोई निर्देश सम्बन्धित को दिये गये है। इस सम्बन्ध में अधिशासी अभियन्ता-वि0/यॉं0 आवश्यक कार्यवाही सम्पादित कर अधोहस्ताक्षरी को अवगत कराये।
1. अपर सचिव
2. मुख्य अभियन्ता
3. अधि0 अभियन्ता जोन-2
4. अधि0 अभियन्ता-वि0/यॉं0 15 दिन
6. अपार्टमेन्ट के निरीक्षण के समय पाया गया कि अपार्टमेन्ट के बाहर लगे आउटर पाइपो से पानी का रिसाव हो रहा था, जिससे फ्लैटों की दीवारों में सीलन आ रही थी एवं काई जम रही थी। कई जगह पर स्ट्रीट लाईटें भी नहीं लगी हैं, जिससे काफी अन्धेरा रहता है साथ ही निरीक्षण में रहवासियों द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कि बिल्डिंग के अपार्टमेन्ट के बिजली पैनल के कमरे में भी पानी भरा रहता है तथा रेलवे लाइन से लगी बाउण्ड्रीवाल की ऊँचाई काफी कम है, जिससे कोई अराजक व्यक्ति दीवार फांदकर अन्दर आ सकता है तथा कोई अनहोनी खटना भी हो सकती है। उक्त सभी समस्याओं का संज्ञान लेते हुए अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा बजट व्यवस्था को देखते हुए सभी कार्यों को जल्द से जल्द पूर्ण कराने हेतु पत्रावली प्रस्तुत करने के निर्देश दिये गये।
1. अपर सचिव
2. मुख्य अभियन्ता
3. अधि0 अभियन्ता जोन-2
4. अधि0 अभियन्ता-वि0/यॉं0 02 माह
7. अपार्टमेन्ट के आर.डब्लू.ए. के सदस्यों द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कि नवनिर्मित सामुदायिक भवन को सीवर लाइन से नहीं जोड़ा गया है न ही आर.डब्लू.ए. को हस्तानान्तरित किया गया है। पार्किंग में जगह-जगह पाईप लीकेज की समस्या पायी गयी। ड्रेनेज नालियो पर ढक्कन नहीं लगे हुए थे। विद्युत आपूर्ति करने वाले ट्रांसफार्मर के समूह के एप्रोच मार्ग को पक्का नहीं कराया गया है तथा अपार्टमेन्ट में बनी अन्डरग्राउंड पार्किंग में कई जगह कमियां पायी गयी। इन सभी कार्यों का संज्ञान लेते हुए अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा इन समस्याओं को जल्द से जल्द निस्तारण के निर्देश दिये गये।
1. अपर सचिव
2. अधिशासी अभियन्ता जोन-2
3. अधि0 अभियन्ता-वि0/यॉं0 01 माह
8. सनराईज अपार्टमेन्ट के आर.डब्लू.ए. द्वारा अवगत कराया गया कि प्राधिकरण द्वारा स्थापित अग्नि सुरक्षा उपकरण उचित रख-रखाव के बिना निष्क्रिय पड़े है तथा रेन वॉटर हार्वेसटिंग का सिस्टम निष्क्रिय पड़ा है। अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा सभी अपार्टमेन्ट का निरीक्षण कर फायर आडिट कराने के निर्देश पूर्व में दिये गये थे, परन्तु किस परिस्थिति में अभी तक उक्त अपार्टमेन्ट का फायर आडिट नहीं कराया गया? तत्काल इस सम्बन्ध में मुख्य अभियन्ता सम्बन्धित का स्पष्टीकरण प्राप्त कर अधोहस्ताक्षरी के समक्ष अपनी संस्तुति सहित प्रस्तुत करे। अग्नि शमन व्यवस्था तथा रेन वॉटर हार्वेसटिंग का कार्य पूर्ण कराने के निर्देश दिये गये।
1. मुख्य अभियन्ता
2. अधिशासी अभियन्ता जोन-2
3. अधि0 अभियन्ता-वि0/यॉं 01 माह :22:
9. सनराईज अपार्टमेंट के निरीक्षण के समय यह पाया गया कि उक्त अपार्टमेन्ट के सामने अवैध मीट की दुकान लगी हुई थी तथा अपार्टमेन्ट के सामने नाले तथा मैनहोल खुले हुए थे। उक्त कार्य नगर निगम को कराया जाना है। इस सम्बन्ध में नगर आयुक्त, नगर निगम को पत्र भेजकर अनुरोध किया गया कि अवैध मीट की दुकानों को हटाने तथा नाले तथा मैनहोल को ढ़क्कने की कार्यवाही कराने का कष्ट करें।
1. नगर आयुक्त, नगर निगम
2. अपर सचिव
3. अधि0 अभियन्ता जोन-2 ल0वि0प्रा0 01 माह
10. सनराईज अपार्टमेन्ट के समस्त कार्यों को पूर्ण कराते हुए अपार्टमेन्ट को आर0डब्लू.ए. को हस्तानान्तरित करने की कार्यवाही सुनिश्चित कराये।
अपर सचिव 03 माह (पवन कुमार गंगवार) (डा0 इन्द्रमणि त्रिपाठी) सचिव उपाध्यक्ष उपाध्यक्ष कार्यालय लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण लखनऊ। पत्र संख्या: 628/VC/2023 दिनांक 10, जनवरी, 2023 प्रतिलिपि:- निम्नलिखित को सूचनार्थ एवं आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु। 1. नगर आयुक्त, नगर निगम, लखनऊ। 2. सचिव/अपर सचिव, ल0वि0प्रा0। 3. मुख्य अभियन्ता, ल0वि0प्रा0। 4. अधीक्षण अभियन्ता-वि0/यॉं, ल0वि0प्रा0। 5. प्रभारी अधिकारी-अपार्टमेन्ट, ल0वि0प्रा0। 6. अधिशासी अभियन्ता-जोन-2/विद्युत यांत्रिक, ल0वि0प्रा0। 7. जोनल अधिकारी जोन-2, ल0वि0प्रा0। 8. समस्त सम्बन्धित। 9. गार्ड फाइल। (पवन कुमार गंगवार) (डा0 इन्द्रमणि त्रिपाठी) सचिव उपाध्यक्ष"
From the perusal of the said inspection report this Court is not at all satisfied with the conduct and the functioning of the opposite party. In the order dated 22-12-2022 this Court has, after noticing the report submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioners, specifically incorporated/mentioned that there is encroachments by the opposite party itself on the various open land/plots which were exclusively meant for the use as park and play ground of the children/residents of the :23: society. The seriousness of the issue is itself and self-explanatory that out of 296 sanctioned flats, the opposite party, Development Authority has constructed 560 flats. No record is placed for perusal of this Court even after the specific order passed by this Court dated 22-12-2022 nor there is any averment in the affidavit filed by the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority.
Even from the perusal of the Nirikshan Aakhya/Inspection Report filed by the Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority it is crystal clear that during the course of inspection the authorities themselves found various illegalities in the said project. Merely by directing the subordinate officers to fulfil the indicated defects or to remove the indicated irregularities the opposite party is not suppose to discharge its burden.
The officer present on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority Sri Gyanendra Verma, Additional Secretary has informed the Court that the original record with regard to the project in question namely 'Sunrise Apartment, Mansarovar Yojana, Lucknow' is not available presently with the opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority.
Let the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority will appear and explain as to why the original record of the said project is not available with the authority and as to why the green belt/land provided for park and playground has been encroached by the Lucknow Development Authority for the purpose of illegal construction of the flats.
Though this Court want that the presence of the Vice Chairman for the abovementioned explanation should be placed earliest, however, the Additional Secretary, who is present has submitted that since the Vice Chairman/Secretary are busy in a programme organized by the State Government namely G-20 Summit, therefore, their personal appearance may be postponed till 15-02-2023. The request of the Additional Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority is, therefore, accepted.
Let this complaint be listed before this bench at 12.00 P.M. on 17-02-2023 on which date the Vice Chairman and the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority will appear and will apprise the Court about the above mentioned issues particularly illegal construction of the flats on open area provided for parks and playground for children of the residents and will also produce the original record with regard to the aforesaid scheme.
Since the inspection report submitted by the Secretary indicates that various irregularities are noticed at the time of inspection will be :24: removed/solved, therefore, a fresh report is directed to be filed before the registry of this Court, a copy of which will be supplied to the learned Advocate Commissioners as well as to the Counsel for the complainant in advance by 15-02-2023.
List on 17-02-2023."
Initially Sri Anshuman Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority. Thereafter another Counsel namely Sri Yogesh Tiwari put appearance on behalf of Lucknow Development Authority and in his presence the order dated 12-01-2023 was passed. The officials were summoned, who were not present on the next date fixed, namely the Additional Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority.
Thereafter on 17-02-2023 following order has been passed which reads as under:-
17-02-2023 The instant complaint is pending since more than six years in which on previous dates several detailed orders are passed and lastly on 12-01-2023 a detailed order, mentioning the previous orders passed by this Court, has been passed.
In the last order dated 12-01-2023 this Court has directed the Vice Chairman and Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority to appear before this Court today at 12.00 P.M. and will apprise the Court about the issues particularly illegal construction of the flats on open area which has been provided for the purpose of park and playground as well as multipurpose utility for the residents of the scheme and the children.
It is pertinent to mention here that the issue involved in the instant complaint is very serious, therefore, the detailed order dated 12-01-2023 has been passed, however, today at 10.00 A.M. an application for exemption of personal appearance is placed by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority signed by the Counsel Sri Yogesh Tiwari, Advocate and another Advocate Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh. The Court has called Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh newly engaged Counsel by the opposite party and enquired as to why he has filed the said application and when he has been engaged by the opposite party as a Counsel in the instant case. Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate has placed a copy of the sanctioned leave to the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority and prayed that seeing the aforesaid issue the case may be adjourned for today and fix after a week.
The Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority was also ordered to be present before this Court today, however, in para 5 of the application dated 17-02-2023 the following contents are mentioned:-:25:
"That the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority has been directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to appear before Court No.16 in criminal misc. bail application no. 1502 of 2023 to appear in person on 17-02-2023 ie. Today, So he is also not able to appear before the Hon'ble Commission."
From the perusal of the aforesaid it is found that the Secretary was supposed to appear before the Hon'ble High Court today, therefore, he prayed for exemption of personal appearance.
Counsel for the complainant Sri Gyanendra Singh is present.
Since this Court has already allowed the application moved by opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority for exemption of personal appearance and fixed the next date being 28-02-2023, let this complaint be listed before this Court at 02.00 P.M. on 28-02-2023."
The order dated 17-02-2023 has been passed by this Court when again another Counsel namely Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh put appearance on behalf of Lucknow Development Authority and has stated that he has been solely engaged and authorized to appear before this Court in the instant complaint case pending since 2016.
An application for exemption of the personal appearance is placed for perusal by Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh newly engaged Counsel. Neither the Vice Chairman; nor the Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority appeared before this Court and since this Court has allowed the application moved by the opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority for exemption of personal appearance, a fresh date has been fixed being 28-02-2023.
On the next date fixed i.e. on 28-02-2023 the case is called out and this Court has than noticed that at least six Counsels appeared on behalf of the Development Authority on different dates.
During the course of hearing of the complaint two Advocates are appointed by this Court as Advocate Commissioners to inspect the disputed site who have submitted their detailed report and after going through the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioners in the month of December, 2022 the subsequent orders, mentioned hereinabove, are passed. On 28-02-2023 the following order has been :26: passed after hearing newly engaged Counsel Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, which reads as under:-
28-02-2023 The instant complaint is pending since 2016. Various opportunities were given to the opposite party Lucknow Development Authority. On the last date i.e. on 12-01-2023 this Court has passed a detailed order after hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
During the pendency of the present complaint on behalf of Lucknow Development Authority at least six Counsels put appearance on different dates. On 12-01-2023 on behalf of Lucknow Development Authority Sri Yogesh Tiwari, Advocate appeared.
This Court has appointed two Advocate Commissioners who have submitted their inspection report and after perusal of the said inspection report and after hearing the Counsel for the respective parties the aforesaid detailed order dated 12-01-2023 has been passed. Thereafter the matter was listed on the next date fixed i.e. on 17-02- 2023. On 17-02-2023 the Vice Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority and the Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority were supposed to appear before this Court, however, both the aforesaid authority submitted applications for non appearance. The applications were accepted and a fresh date has been fixed being 28-02-2023 today.
Another new Counsel put appearance on behalf of Lucknow Development Authority namely Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh. A fresh supplementary affidavit has been filed by Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate dated 27-02-2023 which has been sworn by Sri Pawan Kumar Gangwar, the Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority, a copy of which has been supplied to the Counsel for the complainant yesterday. Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, Counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority has submitted that a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1047/2023 has been filed by the Vice Chairman and the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority before the Hon'ble High Court with a prayer that they may be exempted to appear before this Court.
It is submitted by Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh that the said writ petition has been entertained and interim protection has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court exempting the appearance of the Vice Chairman and Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority vide order dated 27-02-2023. It :27: is informed that the copy of the said order has not been uploaded so far. Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate will submit the copy of the order before this Court within two days. He has further informed that the aforesaid writ petition is fixed by the Hon'ble High Court for hearing on 05-04-2023. In view of the aforesaid, let this complaint be listed again on 20-04-2023.
In the meantime the Counsel for the complainant will file the reply to the affidavit filed by the Secretary dated 27-02-2023. The Counsel for the complainant will also provide the details with regard to open area available in the disputed scheme.
List on 20-04-2023 at 02.00 p.m."
An affidavit sworn by Sri Pawan Kumar Gangwar the Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority dated 27-02-2023 has been filed. Seeing the contents of the said affidavit filed by the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority the case has been adjourned and the personal appearance of the officials was exempted on the pretext that an order has been obtained by the Lucknow Development Authority from the Hon'ble High Court for their exemption, however, when the said statement was confirmed it was found/noticed that there was no such order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and as such the said petition filed under Article 227 has been finally disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court.
In the aforesaid background a fresh date has been fixed being 16- 03-2023 on which date the following order has been passed which reads as follows:-
"16-03-2023 Misc. application has been filed by Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel represents the Lucknow Development Authority with the heading 'Application For Correction/Modification of Order dated 28-02-2023'.
The aforesaid application is not supported by an affidavit. The prayer made in the said application reads as follows:-
"Wherefore, it is mot respectfully prayed that the present application may be allowed with regard to correction/modification of the order dated 28-02-2023 passed by the Hon'ble Commission to the extent of expunging the line "He has further informed that the aforesaid writ petition is fixed by the Hon'ble High Court for hearing :28: on 05-04- 2023" mentioned in para 6 of the order in interest of law and justice."
The application is called out.
No one is present to press the said application. On the other hand, Counsel for the complainant Sri Gyanendra Singh is present.
In view of the aforesaid, let the said application be placed on the next date fixed i.e. on 20-04-2023."
On the previous date also the Counsel for the Development Authority Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh was absent and now today again the Counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh is absent. There is no adjournment application moved by the Counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority, however, Sri Dilip Kumar Shukla another Counsel who represents the Lucknow Development Authority in other cases has prayed for adjournment which this Court has refused/rejected.
Let the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority will explain as to why the orders passed by this Court are not complied with in the instant complaint petition and as to why the newly engaged Counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority is not cooperating in the proceedings.
The matter is serious where the complainant has paid more than Rupees Twenty Two Lacs (Rs.22,00,000/-) in the year 2011 for a 2 BHK Flat proposed by the Lucknow Development Authority which was supposed to be handed over by the Lucknow Development Authority within the stipulated period of two years which expired in the month of December, 2012. Till date the said flat has not been handed over by the Lucknow Development Authority. Even no letter of offer has been received by the complainant.
In fact instead of initial five towers as proposed by the Lucknow Development Authority in its brochure with regard to 'Mansarovar Scheme' proposed in the year 2008 one more (extra) tower is also added in the brochure. The initial publication made by the Lucknow Development Authority shows the total number of flats being 297 whereas subsequently, without any authority of law, the Development Authority has encroached the proposed parks, playground for the children, recreation center for the elderly residents, club area, swimming pool, park and green belt etc. etc. in which illegal construction of extra two towers has been made and as against :29: sanctioned 297 flats, the total number of 560 flats are constructed.. The residents who are residing in the said project are not only facing hardship but there is no place for the children to be used as playground, swimming pool, no place for park, green belt etc. etc. This clearly goes to show that the Development Authority is not only cheating the people/allottes but is also carrying out the illegal construction work without informing the allottees and RWA.
In the aforesaid background this Court also finds that the Counsels are regularly changed time to time on the wishes of the authorities and not only that the authorities, who were supposed to assist before this Court and to apprise the correctness of the facts, are trying to avoid the proceedings and are misleading the Court. The reason for avoidance is clear from the perusal of the above mentioned facts. In the aforesaid background on account of continuous absence of the newly engaged Counsel Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh this Court directed the opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) as penalty which will be deposited/paid in the Chief Minister Disaster Relief Fund, Uttar Pradesh, within a period of two weeks.
This order will be communicated by Counsels present before this Court. Copy of this order be placed by Counsel (Sri Dilip Kumar Shukla, Advocate) before the Vice Chairman and Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority. A copy of this order be also placed by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority before the Principal Secretary, Nagar Niyojan, Uttar Pradesh. The Principal Secretary, Nagar Niyojan will take appropriate steps and action against the erring authorities and will also submit his report with regard to the project in question within a period of one month.
The original record related to the project in question will also be be produced/placed by the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authoroity before this Court for perusal on the next date fixed.
List this case at 02.00 P.M. on 29-05-2023. '' तदोपरान्त विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के अधिवक्ता के विरूद्ध आदेश दिनांक 20-04-2023 में अधिरोपित हर्जाना धनराशि अंकन 1,00,000/- रू0 जो मुख्यमंत्री डिजास्टर रिलीफ फण्ड, उत्तर प्रदेश में जमा की जानी थी, को जमा किए जाने के सन्दर्भ में विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के अधिवक्ता द्वारा कोई विवरण उल्लिखित नहीं किया गया है और न ही उपलब्ध कराया गया है। मात्र एक प्रार्थना पत्र उक्त आदेश दिनांक 20-04-2023 :30: को रिकाल किए जाने का प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसे इस पीठ द्वारा दिनांक 10-05-2023 को निरस्त किया जा चुका है।
आदेश दिनांक 20-04-2023 के अनुपालन में उपाध्यक्ष अथवा सचिव विकास प्राधिकरण को इस न्यायालय के सम्मुख अपनी रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करनी थी जिस सन्दर्भ में अधिवक्ता विपक्षी प्राधिकरण श्री रजनीश कुमार सिंह द्वारा कोई रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है। अपेक्षित अनुपालन सुनिश्चित न करते हुए मात्र इस न्यायालय को अवगत कराया गया कि आदेश दिनांक 20-04-2023 के आदेश के विरूद्ध एक प्रार्थना पत्र/प्रथम अपील सं0-588/2023 मा0 राष्ट्रीय आयोग के सम्मुख योजित की गई है जिसमें किसी प्रकार का कोई आदेश मा0 राष्ट्रीय आयोग द्वारा पारित नहीं किया गया है। मात्र तिथि दिनांक 12-06- 2023 सुनिश्चित की गई है। अपील की प्रति भी कार्यालय में प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है।
इस न्यायालय द्वारा लगातार विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा की जा रही आदेशों की घोर अवहेलना एवं आदेशों का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित न किया जाना विगत पूर्व तिथियों पर भी पाया गया। वस्तुत: परिवादी द्वारा कुल जमा धनराशि 21,28,000/- रू0 के विरूद्ध ग्यारह (11 वर्ष) वर्ष बीतने के उपरान्त भी आज तक परिवादी को फ्लैट का कब्जा प्राप्त नहीं कराया गया है।
इस तथ्य को भी इस आदेश में पुन: उल्लिखित किया जाना आवश्यक है कि विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा योजना में प्रस्तावित 07 टावरों के स्थान पर बच्चों के खेलकूद के प्ले ग्राउण्ड एवं अन्य ओपेन एरिया जहॉं आबंटियों द्वारा अन्य आवश्यक कार्यवाही अपेक्षित थी, में 03 अन्य टावरों का और निर्माण किया गया है जिसमें कुल फ्लैटों की संख्या 296 के स्थान पर 560 फ्लैटों का निर्माण किया गया है। किसी प्रकार की आवश्यक सुविधा भी आबंटियों को प्रदान नहीं की जा रही हैं, बाउण्ड्रीवाल भी टूटी हुई है। आबंटियों द्वारा विपक्षी प्राधिकरण में सम्पर्क स्थापित किए जाने पर भी कोई सुनिश्चित जानकारी न दिया जाना भी विपक्षी प्राधिकरण के अधिकारियों की घोर लापरवाही है। अत्एव विपक्षी लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण के विरूद्ध रूपये 50.00 लाख (पचास लाख रूपये) का हर्जाना अधिरोपित किया जाता है जो :31: विपक्षी प्राधिकरण द्वारा मुख्यमंत्री आपदा राहत कोष उत्तर प्रदेश में चार सप्ताह की अवधि में जमा किया जावेगा।
तदनुसार इस परिवाद को प्रपत्रों की उपलब्धता के अनुसार अन्तिम रूप से निस्तारण हेतु निर्णय सुरक्षित रखा जाता है। आदेश/निर्णय दिनांक 06-06-2023 को इस पीठ द्वारा उदघोषित किया जावेगा।
Heard Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant.
Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of the opposite party and we perused the record available as well as the affidavits filed by the respective parties and evidence adduced by respective parties.
The scheme has been introduced by the opposite party Development Authority in the year 2010 and the brochure with regard to the scheme namely Sunrise Apartment, Mansarovar Yojana, Sector-P, Kanpur Road, Lucknow provides all the requisite details with regard to construction of towers, total number of units/flats, use of building material and other items namely the tiles flooring, granite, water tank, the floor tiles, the items to be fixed in different type of toilets, use of wooden frame, window, doors, use of the flooring items at common space, PVC pipe, security of the society, the boundary wall, grill, gate, guard room, parking of the vehicle to each of the flat owner was mandatory for which the amount charged by the opposite party is clearly mentioned, after structural designing the verification has to be done by the I.I.T., Kanpur, the discount on the payment within the stipulated time as mentioned in the brochure, the period of handing over/delivery of the flat etc. etc. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the total number of tower has been illegally and arbitrarily increased and the illegal construction of extended/supplemented towers has been made by the Development Authority on the land meant for as green area for the society, the land belonging to the community centre, the land originally described as badminton court, swimming pool, double storied basement, car parking, tennis court and playground for the children etc. :32: He has further submitted that no such aforesaid facilities are provided to the buyers of the flat as promised by the opposite party/Development Authority.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has further pointed out that even after full deposit by the complainant the possession has not been handed over to the complainant within the stipulated time as indicated in the brochure or agreed or the assurance given by the Development Authority.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has also pointed out the defects noticed by the Advocate Commissioners appointed by this Court and has submitted that the Advocate Commissioners, after due verification and personal visit of the site, have noticed the defects and submitted their report alongwith various colored pictures/photographs and the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioners itself shows the deficiency on the part of the opposite party and further that even at the time of inspection the flat in question was not completed by the opposite party and there were several major defects pointed out by the Advocate Commissioners in their report.
He has also pointed out that no underground parking is provided/constructed for the Flat buyers of 2 BHK and that illegal amount with regard to parking is realized by the Development Authority from all the 2 BHK allottees. In fact the parking for 2 BHK Flat owners is provided as in open space and common society road which is meant for as the Drive Way.
It has been further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the Completion Certificate provided by the Lucknow Development Authority officials shows the date of issuance of the Complete Certificate dated 12-11-2018. No parking is provided/shown for the owners of 2 BHK flat. The opposite party has also not taken into consideration the essential setup of water harvesting as provided in the brochure and without water harvesting no project can get the Completion Certificate, which is in fact essential condition of the issuance of Completion Certificate framed by the opposite party for all the Developers.
:33:He has further submitted that the boundary wall of the society on the west side of society is missing and some area is encroached by the private persons.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has also pointed out that the Advocate Commissioners, during their visit have found that the construction of east side road was going on and work was in progress and work was taken up by the RWA and not by the Development Authority and that instead of proper community centre, as proposed in the brochure, the same was built in place of block-6. There was no playground available for the children, no gym nor any recreational rooms, no place for table tennis and other facilities and equipments nor any public toilet is constructed.
He has further submitted that even high tension wire and fire safety room was not properly managed by the opposite party Development Authority as is essential for the life of the residents of the society.
The Counsel for the complainant, therefore, submits that in the aforesaid mismanagement by the opposite party and further that without any notice to any of the allottees or the RWA the extra towers are constructed by the opposite party which amounts to clear cut violation of the law and the rules framed by the Development Authority itself.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance of a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supertech Limited V/s Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others decided on 31-08-2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2021 wherein similar kind of situation the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the builder to demolish the illegal construction of the towers.
At the end learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the instant complaint is liable to be allowed with imposition of heavy cost and further that the opposite party be directed to immediately pay the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith the interest @ 15% per annum and the compensation prayed by the complainant in its complaint plus penalty.
:34:Per contra learned Counsel for the Development Authority submits that the Development Authority has proceeded in good faith and there was no latches on the part of the Development Authority either in demanding the extra payment or in proposing to handover the possession of the allotted flat to the complainant after the period/time limit as indicated in the brochure or after the stipulated period.
He has further submitted that due to unavoidable reasons namely the farmers' agitation the construction of the apartment could not start in time and whatever delay is occurred it was due to the agitation by the farmers.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party has further submitted that so far as the payment with regard to initial deposit is concerned the same is not disputed, however the amount further directed to be deposited by the complainant has not been deposited, therefore, the actual possession of the flat in question has not been given to the complainant, hence there was no delay on the part of the opposite party.
So far as the compensation prayed by the complainant is concerned the Counsel for the opposite party submits that it is highly excessive, arbitrary and cannot be allowed as prayed.
We have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
Before coming to a conclusion we deem it appropriate to mention here some of the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supertech Limited V/s Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others as the facts of the present case are quite similar to the facts of the case of Supertech Limited (Supra):-
"3 By its judgment, the High Court directed:
(i) The demolition of Towers -164 and 175 by the third respondent, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority6 , in Emerald Court situated on Plot No 4, Sector 93A, NOIDA constructed by the appellant, Supertech Limited7 ;
(ii) The cost of demolition and removal would be borne by the appellant, failing which NOIDA shall recover it as arrears of land revenue;:35:
(iii)Sanction for prosecution under Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Act 1973 , as incorporated by Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976, shall be granted for the prosecution of the officials of the appellant and the officers of NOIDA for possible 1 Writ Petition (Civil) No 65085 of 2012 2 "RWA" 3 "Emerald Court" 4 "T-16"/"Ceyane" 5 "T-17"/"Apex" 6 "NOIDA" 7 "Supertech" 8 "UPUD Act 1973" 9 "UPIAD Act 1976" PART A 6 violations of the UPIAD Act 1976 and Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act 201010; and
(iv)Refund by the appellant of amounts invested by purchasers who had booked apartments in T-16 and T-17, with interest at fourteen per cent, compounded annually. "
"A.3 First Revised Plan
10) On 29 December 2006, NOIDA sanctioned the first revised plan for Emerald Court under the NBR 2006, by which two additional floors were envisaged in addition to the already sanctioned G+9 floors in the original fourteen towers, thereby bringing all of them to ground and eleven floors (G+11). Furthermore, additional buildings were also sanctioned, namely: (i) Tower-15 (comprising of ground and eleven floors (G+11)); (ii) T-16 (comprising of a cluster of wings including 1 wing of ground and eleven floors (G+11) and 3 wings of ground and four floors (G+4)); and (iii) a shopping complex (comprising of ground and first floor (G+1)). As a consequence, under the first revised plan, NOIDA permitted a total of sixteen towers (G+11) (which would each be 37 mtrs. in height) and one shopping complex (G+1). It is important to note that the appellant was able to have this additional construction due to the area that was made available to it under the supplementary lease deed, and further, when the appellant had allotted flats to the purchasers, only a small 13 "FAR" PART A 9 building on the additional leased area was sanctioned. Pertinently, it is also necessary to highlight that the first revised plan contemplated a green area in front of Tower- 114. According to the purchasers, when the flats were sold, the brochure of the appellant contained information in accordance with the first revised plan dated 29 December 2006, which shows the area in front of T-1 as a green area.:36:
11 On 10 April 2008, a completion certificate was granted in relation to the first eight towers (G+11). Thereafter, various owners of flats were granted possession by the appellant. Crucially, the completion map also indicated a green area in front of T1, where currently T-16 and T-17 are being constructed."
A.4 Second Revised Plan 15 However, it appears from the record that the appellant had already started construction of the disputed towers - Apex and Ceyane - prior to the grant of this sanction by NOIDA. On 16 July 2009, the appellant informed the flat owners that:
"1. That we have bought two separate plots measuring approximately 48000 square meter and 6500 square meter and got them registered separately in March 2005 & May 2006 respectively.
2. That the new towers which are being constructed will have altogether separate entry, exit, swimming pool, club & basic infrastructure. We will also construct boundary wall separating two structure i.e. existing 15 towers & Apex Ceyane."
"17 On 11 September 2009, the Chief Fire Officer of Gautam Budh Nagar15, the fourth respondent, issued a report to the In-charge (Building Cell) NOIDA, Sector 6 for the grant of the provisional Non-Objection Certificate16 for T-16 and T-17. The provisional Fire NOC was made subject to compliance with the requirements of the National Building Code, 200517."
"A.5 Third Revised Plan 25 On 2 March 2012, the third revised plan was sanctioned by NOIDA for Emerald Court. Through this sanction, the height of T-16 and T-17 was permitted to be raised from 24 floors to 40 floors (i.e., G+40), resulting in the building's height being 121 mtrs. Further, T-16 and T-17 would also consist, inter alia, of two basements and open space for parking beneath the towers. The third revised plan also contained a requirement of compliance with the UP Apartments Act 2010, along with similar requirements which were present in the second revised plan."
"b. T-17 does not have any set-backs and has the same width throughout;:37:
c. At least 12 mtrs. distance is required at the ground level even for tower like structures; and d. The deficiency of the mandated open space of 16 mtrs. under the NBC 2005 in tower-like structures can be cured by set-backs on upper levels. However, the distance of 12 mtrs. at the ground level is still mandatory;
(viii) Possession of flats in T-1 was given to purchasers in 2008. The second and third revised plans of 2009 and 2012 respectively proposed a space frame connecting T-1 and T-17 when the residents had already started living in T-1. This is illegal and a safety hazard;
(x) Consent of flat owners was required under UP Apartments Act 2010 before an alteration in the sanctioned plan:
a. Sections 4(4) and Section 5(3) of the UP Apartments Act 2010 requires the consent of all allottees before a change in the sanctioned PART B 38 plan/undivided interest in the common area is made. The removal of the green area reduced the common areas and, with an increase in the flats from 689 to 1573, the proportionate undivided interest in the common areas has been reduced substantially;
b. The UP Apartments Act 2010 is applicable irrespective of whether or not a society is formed. The rights are vested with the apartment owners and not the association; and c. Gardens as well as land are included in the definition of common areas over which all residents have rights;
(xi) Consent of flat owners ought to have been obtained before obtaining an alteration of the sanctioned plan, under UP 1975 Act:
a. Under Sections 5(2) and 5(3), undivided interest cannot be altered without the consent of all owners of flats;
b. Clause II(h) of the lease deed stipulates the applicability of the UP 1975 Act. This is not confined only to maintenance. The tripartite sub-lease between NOIDA, the appellant and the allotees also mandates the applicability of the UP 1975 Act; and c. The appellant was responsible to ensure that the declaration under the UP 1975 Act was made. It cannot take advantage of its own wrong in failing to submit a declaration;:38:
(xii) The appellant and NOIDA have colluded to by-pass the Building Regulations: PART B 39 a. Despite the revised plans violating the distance criteria, NOIDA granted sanction to the said revisions. The plans were not cancelled despite repeated reminders from the RWA;
b. Despite the letter of the CFO dated 24 April 2012 highlighting the violation of the distance criteria, NOIDA did not take any action;
c. The appellant was aware in advance that its plan would be sanctioned in the future, and hence built a stronger foundation in 2009 to support forty storey buildings for T-16 and T-17, which received sanction only in 2012;
d. Under the terms of approval, the sanctioned plan had to be kept at the site for display. In spite of this, there was a failure of the appellant to display the plans. When a request was made by the RWA to NOIDA to provide a copy of the plans, NOIDA asked the appellant whether it could supply the plans. Upon the refusal by the appellant, NOIDA declined to provide the plans; and e. No action was taken by NOIDA after issuing a show cause notice for violation of the minimum distance requirement to the appellant based on a complaint by the flat owners;
(xiii) No part of the second revised plan of 2009 can be saved as it is in violation of the distance criteria contained in the NBR 2006, and is also contrary to the UP 1975 Act;
(xiv) The appellant cannot make any further constructions without the consent of the existing flat owners under the UP Apartments Act 2010 and the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016;
(xv) There is no equity in favour of the flat buyers in the new buildings (T-16 and T-17) who have decided to retain their flats, particularly when this Court had through several orders granted an opportunity to the purchasers to seek refund;
(xvi) T-16 and T-17 can safely be demolished; and (xvii) False and misleading statements have been made by the appellant in the course of its pleadings before the High Court and this Court.
"First revised sanction dated 29 December 2006 :39: 51 NBR 2006 came into force on 16 December 2006. The sanctioned plan for the project was first revised on 29 December 2006, and it covered a total area of 54,819 sq. mtrs., leased to the appellant under the Lease Deed and the PART D 45 Supplementary Lease Deed. The first revised plan provided for the construction of two additional towers (T-15 and T-16) and one shopping complex (G+1 floors). All 16 towers were to comprise of G+11 floors and were to be 37 mtrs. in height.
52 The first revised plan was governed by the NBR 2006. Regulation 33 provided for permissible FAR, ground coverage and height of buildings. Regulation 33.2 dealt with the group housing. The table appended to it is as follows:
"33.2 Group Housing GROUP HOUSING Max Ground Coverage FAR Height
1.Coverage 30 200 No limit
2.Densitty As mentioned in the section layout plan or scheme Regulation 32 deals with set-backs, which is defined as the line parallel to the plot boundaries, beyond which nothing can be constructed towards the plot boundaries. Regulation 32.3 stipulates that where a plot size exceeds 40,000 sq. mtrs., there has to be a front setback of 25 mtrs., while setbacks on the rear and on all sides will be 9 mtrs. Regulation 33.2.3 is relevant for the dispute in the present case and it stipulates as follows, insofar as is relevant:
"i. Distance between two adjacent building blocks shall not be less than half of the height of tallest building."
(emphasis supplied)"
"With respect to the distance between two adjacent building blocks, Regulation 24.2.1.6 provides:
"Distance between two adjacent building blocks Distance between two adjacent building blocks shall be minimum 6 mtrs. to 16 mtrs. depending on the height of blocks. For building height up to 18 mtrs, the spacing shall be 6 mtrs and thereafter the spacing shall be increased by 1 metre for every addition of 3 mtrs in height of building subject to a maximum spacing of 16 mtrs as per National Building Code - 2005. If the :40: blocks have dead-end sides facing each other, th[e]n the spacing shall be maximum 9 mtrs. instead of PART D 49 16 mtrs. Moreover, the allottee may provide or propose more than 16 mtrs. space between two blocks."
"117.(iii) Set back is used as a parking, so the effective set back in certain places is reduced by 2 mtrs. and is thus less than the required 9 mtrs."
"119 Regulation 76 of NBR 2006 states that the building must be planned and constructed in accordance with Part IV of National Building Code 1970, amended as of that day."
"E Consent of the RWA 121 Having held above that the sanction for the construction of T-16 and T-17 were given by NOIDA in contravention of the minimum distance requirement provided by the Building Regulations, we will advert to the next issue. It has been contended by RWA that the sanction could not have been revised without the consent of the flat purchasers in the original fifteen towers. While analyzing this issue, it is first important to consider the appellant's preliminary objection that the UP 1975 Act is not applicable to the present case. After addressing the preliminary objection, we shall analyze whether the consent was actually required under the UP 1975 Act and UP Apartments Act 2010"
"129 In the backdrop of this provision, more particularly, clause II(h) of the lease deed which was executed by NOIDA in favour of the appellant on 16 March 2005, the appellant was duty bound to comply with the provisions of the UP 1975 Act. By submitting before this Court that it is not bound by the terms of its agreement or the Act for want of a declaration under Section 2, the appellant is evidently attempting to take advantage of its own wrong."
"Sub-Section (4) of Section 4 contains the following stipulations:
"(4) After plans, specifications and other particulars specified in this section as sanctioned by the prescribed sanctioning authority are disclosed to the intending purchaser and a written agreement of sale is entered into and registered with the office of concerned registering authorities. The promoter may make such minor additions or alterations as may be required by the owner or owners, or such minor changes or alterations as may be necessary due to architectural and structural :41: reason's duly recommended and verified by authorized Architect or Engineer after proper declaration and intimation to the owner:
Provided that the promoter shall not make any alterations in the plans, specifications and other particulars without the previous consent of the intending purchaser, project Architect, project Engineer and obtaining the required permission of the prescribed sanctioning authority, and in no case he shall make such alterations as an not permissible in the building bye-laws."
Under clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 4, a promoter who intends to sell an apartment is required to make a full disclosure in writing to an intending purchaser and to the competent authority of the plans and specifications approved or submitted for approval to the local authority, of the building of which the apartment is a part. Similarly, under clause (d), a disclosure has to be made in regard to the common areas and facilities in accordance with the approved lay-out plan or building plan. Once such a disclosure has been made, sub-Section (4) stipulates that upon the execution of a written agreement to sell, the promoter may make minor additions or alterations as may be required or necessary due to architectural and structural reasons duly authorized and verified by authorized Architects or Engineers. Apart from these minor additions or alterations which are contemplated by sub-Section (4), the proviso stipulates that the promoter shall not make any alterations in the plans, specifications and other particulars "without the previous consent of the intending purchaser".
"135 Section 5 of the Act provides for the rights of apartment owners in the following terms, insofar as is relevant:
"5. Rights of Apartment Owners.-- (1) Every person to whom any apartment is sold or otherwise transferred by the promoter shall subject to the other provisions of this Act, be entitled to the exclusive ownership and possession of the apartment so sold or otherwise transferred to him.
(2) Every person who becomes entitled to the exclusive ownership and possession of an apartment shall be entitled to such percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities as may be specified in the Deed of Apartment and such percentage shall be computed by taking, as a basis, the area of the apartment in relation to the aggregate area of all apartments of the building.
(3)(a) The percentage of the undivided interest of each apartment owner in the common areas and facilities shall have a permanent character, and shall not be altered without the written consent of all the apartment owners and approval of the competent authority.:42:
(b) The percentage of the undivided interest in the common areas and facilities shall not be separated from the apartment to which it appertains and shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with apartment, even though such interest is not expressly mentioned in the conveyance or other instrument."
"136 It is important to clarify at this stage that the UP Apartments Act 2010 will not apply with retrospective effect to the second revised plan, which was sanctioned on 26 November 2009. However, the legislation, which came into force upon publication in the UP Gazette on 19 March 2010, will have consequences for the third revised plan sanctioned on 2 March 2012, as analysed below."
"137 In terms of the third revised plan which was sanctioned on 2 March 2012, the height of T-16 and T-17 was sought to be increased from twenty-four to forty (or thirty-nine, as the case may be) floors. As a result, the total number of flat purchasers would increase from 650 to 1500. The clear implication of this would be a reduction of the undivided interest of the existing purchasers in the common areas. As a matter of fact, it has also been submitted on behalf of the first respondent that the additional lease rent paid to NOIDA was also sought to be collected from the existing flat purchasers at the rate of Rs 190 per sq. foot. A statement to that effect was also contained in an affidavit filed before the High Court on behalf of the first respondent. The purchase of additional FAR by the appellant cannot be used to trample over the rights of the existing purchasers.
138 Flats were sold on the representation that there would be a garden area adjacent to T-1. The garden adjacent to T-1 is clearly depicted in the first revised plan of 29 December 2006. It is this garden area which was encroached upon when the second revised plan was sanctioned on 26 November 2009."
"F Collusion and Illegal Construction 143 The record of this case is replete with instances which highlight the collusion between the officers of NOIDA with the appellant and its management. The case has revealed a nefarious complicity of the planning authority in the violation by the developer of the provisions of law.
144 The High Court has dealt with the collusion between the officials of NOIDA and the appellant. This is writ large from the facts as :43: they have emerged before this Court as well. The High Court has in these circumstances correctly come to the conclusion that there was collusion between the developer and the planning authority."
148 The judgments of this Court spanning the last four decades emphasize the duty of planning bodies, while sanctioning building plans and enforcing building regulations and bye-laws to conform to the norms by which they are governed. A breach by the planning authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at the instance of residents whose rights are infringed by the violation of law. Their quality of life is directly affected by the failure of the planning authority to enforce compliance. Unfortunately, the diverse and unseen group of flat buyers suffers the impact of the unholy nexus between builders and planners. Their quality of life is affected the most. Yet, confronted with the economic might of developers and the might of legal authority wielded by planning bodies, the few who raise their voices have to pursue a long and expensive battle for rights with little certainty of outcomes. As this case demonstrates, they are denied access to information and are victims of misinformation. Hence, the law must step in to protect their legitimate concerns."
Learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention on the following judgments:-
In K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, (1974) 2 SCC 506 Chief Justice AN Ray speaking for a two judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the municipality functions for public benefit and when it "acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those powers then in those cases it is not exercising its jurisdiction irregularly or wrongly but it is usurping powers which it does not possess". This Court also held:
"27...The right to build on his own land is a right incidental to the ownership of that land. Within the Municipality the exercise of that right has been regulated in the interest of the community residing within the limits of the Municipal Committee. If under pretence of any authority which the law does give to the Municipality it goes beyond the line of its authority, and infringes or violates the rights of others, it becomes like all other individuals amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts. If sanction is given to build by contravening a bye-law the jurisdiction of the courts will be invoked on the ground that the approval by an authority of building plans which contravene the bye-laws made by that authority is illegal and inoperative. (See Yabbicom v. King [(1899) 1 QB 444])."
This Court held that an unregulated construction materiallyaffects the right of enjoyment of property by persons residing in a residential area, and hence, it is the duty of the municipal authority to ensure that the area is not adversely affected by unauthorized construction.
These principles were re-affirmed by a two judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr G.N. Khajuria v. Delhi Development Authority (1995) 5 SCC 762 where the Hon'ble Court held that it was not open to the Delhi Development Authority to carve out a space, which was meant for a park for a nursery school. Justice BL Hansaria, speaking for the Court, observed:
"10. Before parting, we have an observation to make. The same is that a feeling is gathering ground that where unauthorised constructions are demolished on the force of the order of courts, the illegality is not taken care of fully inasmuch as the officers of the statutory body who had allowed the unauthorised construction to be made or make illegal allotments go scot free. This should not, however, have happened for two reasons.
First, it is the illegal action/order of the officer which lies at the root of the unlawful act of the citizen concerned, because of which the officer is more to be blamed than the recipient of the illegal benefit. It is thus imperative, according to us, that while undoing the mischief which would require the demolition of the unauthorised construction, the delinquent officer has also to be punished in accordance with law. This, however, seldom happens. Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the officer who had misused his power has also to be properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that the officer, who made the hay when the sun shined (sic), retains the hay, which tempts others to do the same. This really gives fillip to the commission of tainted acts, whereas the aim should be opposite."
In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, (2004) 8 SCC 733 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case where the builder had exceeded the permissible construction under the sanctioned plan and had constructed an additional floor on the building, which was unauthorized. Chief Justice RC Lahoti, speaking for a two judge Bench, observed:
"24. Structural and lot area regulations authorise the municipal authorities to regulate and restrict the height, number of storeys and other structures; the percentage of a plot that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts and open spaces; the density of population; and the location and use of buildings and structures. All these have in our view and do achieve the larger purpose of the public health, safety or general welfare. So are front setback provisions, average alignments and structural alterations. Any violation of zoning and regulation laws takes the toll in terms of public welfare and convenience being sacrificed apart from the risk, inconvenience and hardship which is posed to the occupants of the building."
Noting that the private interest of land owners stands subordinate to the public good while enforcing building and municipal regulations, the Court issued a caution against the tendency to compound violations of building regulations:
"25...The cases of professional builders stand on a different footing from an individual constructing his own building. A professional builder is supposed to understand the laws better and deviations by such builders can safely be assumed to be deliberate and done with the intention of earning profits and hence deserve to be dealt with sternly so as to act as a deterrent for future. It is common knowledge that the builders enter into underhand dealings. Be that as it may, the State Governments should think of levying heavy penalties on such builders and therefrom develop a welfare fund which can be utilised for compensating and rehabilitating such innocent or unwary buyers who are displaced on account of demolition of illegal constructions."
In Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam, Hon'ble Justice Deepak Verma, speaking for a two judge Bench, observed:
"55. It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for 33 (2010) 2 SCC 27 PART F 124 this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the builder."
"The Court lamented that the earlier decisions on the subject had not resulted in enhancing compliance by developers with building regulations. Further, the Court noted that if unauthorized constructions were allowed to stand or are "given a seal of approval by Court", it was bound to affect the public at large. It also noted that the jurisdiction and power of Courts to indemnify citizens who are affected by an unauthorized construction erected by a developer could be utilized to compensate ordinary citizens. "
In Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai,(2013)5 SCC 357 Hon'ble Justice GS Singhvi, writing for a two judge Bench, reiterated the earlier decisions on this subject and observed:
"8. At the outset, we would like to observe that by rejecting the prayer for regularisation of the floors constructed in wanton violation of the sanctioned plan, the Deputy Chief Engineer and the appellate authority have demonstrated their determination to ensure planned development of the commercial capital of the country and the orders passed by them have given a hope to the law-abiding citizens that someone in the hierarchy of administration will not allow unscrupulous developers/builders to take law into their hands and get away with it."
The Court further observed that an unauthorized construction destroys the concept of planned development, and places an unbearable burden on basic amenities provided by public authorities. The Court held that it was imperative for the public authority to not only demolish such constructions but also to impose a penalty on the wrongdoers involved. This lament of this Court, over the brazen violation of building regulations by developers acting in collusion with planning bodies, was brought to the fore-front when the Court prefaced its judgment with the following observations:
"1. In the last five decades, the provisions contained in various municipal laws for planned development of the areas to which such laws are applicable have been violated with impunity in all the cities, big or small, and those entrusted with the task of ensuring implementation of the master plan, etc. have miserably failed to perform their duties. It is highly regrettable that this is so despite the fact that this Court has, keeping in view the imperatives of preserving the ecology and environment of the area and protecting the rights of the citizens, repeatedly cautioned the authorities concerned against arbitrary regularisation of illegal constructions by way of compounding and otherwise."
Finally, the Court also observed that no case has been made out for directing the municipal corporation to regularize a construction which has been made in violation of the sanctioned plan and cautioned against doing so. In that context, it held:
"56...We would like to reiterate that no authority administering municipal laws and other similar laws can encourage violation of the sanctioned plan. The courts are also expected to refrain from exercising equitable jurisdiction for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised constructions else it would encourage violators of the planning laws and destroy the very idea and concept of planned development of urban as well as rural areas."
These concerns have been reiterated in the more recent decisions of this Court in Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. State of Kerala (2019) 7 SCC 248, Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. Maradu Municipality, Maradu (2021) 16 SCC 822 and Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India (2019) 19 SCC 16 155 In the present case, once this Court has determined that the sanctioned plan for Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T-17) breached the NBR 2006, NBR 2010, NBC 2005, UP 1975 Act and the UP Apartments Act 2010, it becomes its duty to take stock of the violations committed by the appellant in collusion with NOIDA. The appellant has raised false pleas and attempted to mislead this Court, while the officials of NOIDA have not acted bona fide in the discharge of their duties. The appellant has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan. Therefore, we confirm the directions of the High Court including the order of demolition and for sanctioning prosecution under Section 49 of the UPUD Act, as incorporated by Section 12 of the UPIAD Act 1976, against the officials of the appellant and the officers of NOIDA for violations of the UPIAD Act 1976 and UP Apartments Act 2010."
:48:We find that while deciding the issue with regard to illegal and unauthorized construction by the developer with the collusion of the Development Authority the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed for the demolition of the total unauthorised construction of the building.
In the instant case we have noticed that the facts are little different than of the case of the Supertech Limited (supra). The difference we find is that in the case of Supertech the construction of the building was in progress whereas in the instant case the construction work has been almost completed by the opposite party Lucknow Development Authority. Some of the allottees are given the possession of their allotted flats and are residing. The registered sale deeds are executed by the Development Authority in favour of the allottees. We are informed that about 60% allottees are residing in the different towers of the scheme. Therefore, in the interest of buyers and the residents of the apartment, we do not pass order of demolition in the instant case. Though the act of the opposite party (Lucknow Development Authority) is highly illegal, inappropriate and arbitrary we therefore will impose heavy cost upon the Lucknow Development Authority and particularly the cost so imposed against the Development Authority will be realized, after due enquiry to be conducted by the Divisional Commissioner/Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority and after holding the authorities guilty from erring authorities.
The Divisional Commissioner/Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority is hereby directed to conduct the enquiry within three months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment and submit the report to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of U.P. and the State Government who will take an appropriate action in accordance with law against the erring authorities.
The cost will be deposited by the Development Authority in the fund of Chief Minister Disaster Relief Fund which will be realized from the erring authorities who will be held guilty after the enquiry completed by the State Government.
Having heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the complainant as well as learned Counsel for the Development Authority :49: and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party has committed gross deficiency in service and the submission of learned Counsel for the complainant appears to be justified and the complainant is entitled to get the possession of the flat allotted to him by the opposite party with compensation as well as cost of the case.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the positive opinion that the argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant has force and thus the complaint of the complainant is liable to be allowed with cost.
ORDER The complaint is allowed with the following directions :-
The opposite party is directed to handover the physical possession of the flat with all the basic amenities as provided in the agreement entered into between the parties and to make a registered sale deed in favour of complainant on the same amount as quoted and agreed at the time of lottery after deducting the 2% of the rest 75% of the total cost of the flat.
The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) for the financial loss suffered by the complainant because of sheer negligence, delay and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the conveyance charges Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) and the complainant is also liable to be compensated for the family members financial loss of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only).
The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) for compensation for mental agony and physical trauma suffered by the complainant and his family and Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) for loss in reputation.
The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) towards the cost of complaint.:50:
The opposite party is directed to deposit the cost Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) in Chief Minster Disaster Relief Fund, U.P. which will be paid/deposited within two months and will be realized from the concern officials of the respondent authority, whether they are working or retired.
The respondent authority will complete all remaining development work, like construction of roads, installation of lights in common area, provision of water harvesting system, provision of fire fighting system, provision of car parking etc. to the satisfaction of office bearers of RWA/Allottees.
The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the interest at the rate of 10% per annum towards the inordinate delay of 12 years committed by the opposite party on the deposited amount from the respective date of deposits/payments till the date of delivery of possession of the allotted flat.
Compliance of the order be made by the opposite party within a period of two months from the date of judgment. If the compliance is not made by the opposite party within the time stipulated, the interest will be paid by the opposite party at the rate of 12% per annum to the complainant.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) ( VIKAS SAXENA ) PRESIDENT MEMBER Pnt. [HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] JUDICIAL MEMBER