National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Shoryapuram Welfare Association, vs M/S Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd. & 2 ... on 11 July, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. NC/CC/428/2013
M/s SHORYAPURAM WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
PRESENT ADDRESS - Through its President, Shri Praveen Sharma, Regd. Office: Flat No. B-
24/G-1, Ground Floor, Dilshad Garden, , DELHI - 110095.
KAVITA
PRESENT ADDRESS - .
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s NITISHREE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & 2 ORS.,
PRESENT ADDRESS - Through its Chairman, B-111, Sector-5, Noida, , GAUTAM BUDH
NAGAR.
Shri Anil Jain, Chairman,
PRESENT ADDRESS - Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd., B-111, Sector-5, Noida, , GAUTAM BUDH
NAGAR.
Ghaziabad Development Authority,
PRESENT ADDRESS - Through its Vice-Chairman, Vikash Path, Near Old Bus Stand, ,
GHAZIABAD - 201301.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
MR. RAVINDER PAL SINGH, ADVOCATE
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
MR. PULKIT PRAKASH, ADVOCATE MR. ARJUN MOHAN, ADVOCATE MS. ARUSHI
SHARMA, ADVOCATE MS. ANKITA SINHA, ADVOCATE FOR OP-1 & 2. MR.
SIDDHARTH SENGAR, ADVOCATE FOR OP-3/GDA.
DATED: 11/07/2025
ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking possession of the plots from the Opposite Parties along with waiver of allegedly unjustified External Facility Connectivity Charges (EFCC) and other ancillary reliefs.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that an integrated township project "Shouryapuram" was launched by the Opposite Party No. 1/Builder in 2005 on NH-24, village Bamheta, Shahpur, Ghaziabad, with public representations that the Developer had aggregated sufficient land and that it would, after securing Ghaziabad Development Authority/Opposite Party No. 3's approvals, create a fully serviced township with internal roads, water, sewerage, electricity and other civic amenities. Plots measuring 175, 240 and 360 sq. yd. were offered at 6,989 to 10,995 per sq. yd. plus External Development Charges (EDC) payable as per GDA norms, the Basic Sale Price and EDC being demand-linked to construction milestones. The Complainant is an Association registered on 19.09.2013 under the Societies Registration Act and authorised by a resolution of 12.11.2013 to litigate through its president, Shri Praveen Sharma, who represents 21 purchasers of residential plots in the integrated township. Between 2005 and 2009, the 21 members, all middle-income purchasers, and four of them senior citizens, remitted more than 45 per cent of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) and proportional EDC, aggregating roughly 13 crore, some by way of bank loans on which interest continues to run.
3. Each Member received a standard Allotment Letter and, in many cases, a uniform Plot Buyer Agreement promising possession by June 2009 with a three-month grace period. From 2007 onwards individual Allottees repeatedly visited the site and the Opposite Party's office, wherein it was found that progress was negligible, yet the Opposite Party No. 1 insisted that possession would be timely and later claimed that financial difficulties would be solved through a joint venture with "Jaipuria Group". Ultimately, in meetings after the Association's formation, the Chairman- cum-Managing Director/Opposite Party No. 2 disclosed that the original layout, plot numbers and payment schedule "stood cancelled", and a fresh plan, still un-sanctioned by Opposite Party No. 3 would be issued on a "first-come-first-serve" basis provided the existing Allottees paid an additional amount of 4,930/- per sq. yd. as External Facility Connectivity Charges (EFCC) within 30 days, after which plots would allegedly be delivered in 8 months. The Complainant Association regards this surcharge as wholly arbitrary, having no contractual or statutory basis.
4. A Newsletter circulated by the Opposite Party No. 1 in August-September 2010 announcing that possession of Phase-I plots was being handed over proved entirely misleading as Members found no internal development, while the Opposite Party No. 1 was both marketing fresh plots and constructing multi-storey floors for new customers. The original Allottees, now deprived of their plots for 14 years, continue to bear loan interest and suffer severe mental distress with retired Members being unable to build their post-retirement homes. A Legal Notice dated 12.11.2013 was gotten issued by the Association demanding possession or refund drew no meaningful response, giving rise to a continuing cause of action. Aggrieved with the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, present Complaint has been filed by the Association praying as follows -
"a. the respondent no. 1&2 to deliver the possession of the full developed plots as per the agreement within a period of 3 month and take the balance amount as per the earlier agreement at the time of handover of the possession of the plots, and b. the respondent no.3 not to give final clearance of the project, unless the plots are marked or handed over the member of the complainant Association,.
c. Respondent No. 1&2 to deliver alternate plots at the original cost in the same project, in case the Respondent No. 1&2 are not in a position to give possession of the plots as per the agreement.
d. declare in the demand of Rs. 4930/Sq Yds extra charges, which are not part of the earliest agreement, as illegal.
e. direct the Respondent No. 1&2 to pay the interest on the deposited amount @24% for the delay in implementation of the project.
f. award Rs. 50,00,000/- towards the damages for mental agony and the cost of this litigation which is quantified as Rs. 5,00,000/-, and g. award punitive damage against the Respondent No.1 & 2 for indulging unfair trade practices.
h. pass any such other/future order/order which the this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
5. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their Written Statement and resisted the Complaint. They have denied all the material averments made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 have averred that contrary to the Complaint's narrative, the township project "Shouryapuram" has at all relevant times possessed the requisite layout approval and sanctions issued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA). The development has been progressing in phases, and the Opposite Party No. 1 has already executed and registered in favour of individual purchasers well over a thousand sale deeds. Those conveyances establish both the legality of the project and the Opposite Party No. 1's readiness to hand over possession to any Allottee who discharges the agreed financial obligations. The Complainant Association, comprising 21 Members, suppresses material facts. Each of its Members applied for a plot under a Time- linked Payment Schedule that formed part of the printed Allotment Letter and, where executed, the plot-buyers' Agreement. Although more than 13 years have elapsed since allotment, the Complainants have, on their own showing, remitted only about 45-50% of the basic sale price while many have made no payment at all since 2009. The project was never a "construction- linked" Scheme, possession and registration are contractually contingent on timely payment, a fact that the Complainants ignore while attributing delay to the Developer. In August-September, 2010 the Opposite Party No. 1 circulated a Newsletter announcing that Phase 1 plots were ready for "as-is-where-is" possession. Numerous Allottees responded and tendered the balance consideration, subsequently receiving registered Conveyance Deeds. While not even one Member of the present Association came forward, though they were repeatedly invited to do so. Instead, some Members acquired their plots by resale from the original Allottees and thereby stepped into the latter's contractual shoes, bound by every term, including the payment schedule, yet they now seek to disown those very obligations. One such Member, Mr. Rajeev Kapoor, has since executed a Memorandum of Understanding on 02.08.2012 transferring all his rights to Mr. Nivas Tyagi, a fact evidenced at Annexure R-5. The inclusion of parties who no longer hold any subsisting interest renders the Complaint bad for mis-joinder and underscores the mala fide intent behind it.
6. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 have further averred in the Written Statement that the allegation of them raising an "illegal" External Facility Connectivity Charge (EFCC) of 4,930/- per sq. yd. is baseless. The EFCC represents the Architect's quantified estimate of the external infrastructure, approach roads, drainage, electrification, and other services mandated by GDA guidelines. The earlier EDC payments covered only an initial portion of these costs and the balance is legitimately recoverable. The Architect's certification supporting this computation is filed as Annexure R-6; That without settling these admitted dues, the Complainants cannot, in equity or law, press for possession or claim deficiency; That even if the Complainants' assertions were accepted arguendo, their cause would still be barred by limitation. The alleged delay arose, if at all, more than a decade ago and the cause of action, therefore, is long since extinguished. Having defaulted on their own contractual obligations for years and ignored multiple opportunities to regularise payments and take possession, the Complainants are estopped from invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission.
7. The Opposite Party No. 3 has filed its Written Statement and resisted the Complaint. It has denied all the material averments made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 3 has averred that that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has no contractual relationship with the plot-purchasing Association and therefore no consumer dispute lies against it. The Authority merely performs statutory functions. In 2006, the Board sanctioned the Developer's detailed project report for the 300-acre "Shouryapuram" township at Shahpur-Bamheta and approved the layout on 29.11.2010 with an amended plan on 12.02.2014. All on-site development remains the sole responsibility of the private Developer, i.e. Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.
8. The Opposite Party No. 3 has further averred in its Written Statement that the GDA neither sold any plots nor provided any service to the Complainants for consideration, and no allegation of "deficiency" as defined in section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable; That the Complaint does not set out any act or omission by GDA, nor has the Association ever corresponded with it. Under the Act, a consumer dispute must be between a consumer and the trader or service-provider from whom the consumer bought goods or services and GDA is neither of the two. Its presence in these proceedings, evidently added only because it is the statutory planning authority amounts to mis-joinder and wastes judicial and public resources. Should the Developer breach the sanctioned conditions, the GDA will act under its own Policies, but that is a matter between the GDA and the Developer, not a consumer grievance. Accordingly, the GDA prays that its name be struck out and the Complaint, which appears inflated merely to invoke this Commission's pecuniary jurisdiction, be dismissed against it.
9. Rejoinder on behalf of the Complainant to the Written Statement by the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 has been filed; It has been averred in the Rejoinder that relying on printed Allotment Letters and identical plot-buyer Agreements, the 21 Complainant Members, many of whom funded the purchase through loans paid over 45 per cent of BSP plus part-EDC between 2005 and 2009. The Agreements and repeated oral assurances fixed June 2009 (with 3 months grace) as the outside date for delivery of fully-developed, amenity-equipped plots. By mid-2009, it became evident that virtually no development had occurred. Nonetheless, the Developer continued to retain and utilise the Complainants' money, leaving those who had borrowed to service mounting interest. In subsequent meetings, the Developer admitted that the original layout, plot numbers and payment schedule had lapsed, proposed an entirely new layout to be readied by 20.06.2010, and announced that fresh allotments would be made on a "first-come-first-served" basis. They also demanded an additional 4,930/- per sq. yd. as "External Facility Connectivity Charges", payable within 30 days, even though this head of charge is absent from the original Agreements and has never been justified. Despite a Newsletter circulated in August-September, 2010 claiming that Phase 1 possession had commenced, site inspections by the Complainants revealed no civic infrastructure. Instead, the Developer was marketing new plots and even constructing saleable floors, thereby preferring fresh customers over existing Allottees. The Developer's failure to honour the contractual possession date, their unilateral alteration of layout and payment terms, and the arbitrary imposition of EFCC constitute clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Their Written Statement, which ignores these core breaches, is therefore baseless and should be rejected in toto.
10. Evidence by way of Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Complainant by Mr. Praveen Sharma, President of the M/s. Shoryapuram Welfare Association; Evidence by way of Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 by Mr. P.C. Mishra, Authorized Representative of M/s. Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd. (now known as M/s. Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd.).
11. Heard Ld. Counsel for Complainant and the Opposite Parties, and perused the material available on record.
12. Ld. Counsel for Complainant has argued that the August-September, 2010 Newsletter by the Developer claiming Phase 1 possession proved false. The site still lacks basic civic infrastructure while the Developer started marketing new plots and raise constructions for third parties; That only 105 out of 1,082 plots have been registered, and that followed coercive demands, but none of the Association's Members has received possession although most have been servicing loans on the sums advanced. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2's Written Statement suppresses these facts, wrongly asserts full approvals and shifts blame to purchasers. The EFCC demand has never been justified by any GDA directive and the queries sent by Members remain unanswered.
13. Ld. Counsel for Complainant further argued that the allegations that Member, Mr. Rajiv Kapoor, transferred his allotment are baseless as the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 have supplied no matching documentation. The project was always marketed as time-linked and without visible progress the Members were under no obligation to release further funds; That continuous delay since 2009 constitutes a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The Members remain ready to pay the balance BSP and legitimate GDA-mandated charges once the plots are made possession-worthy with promised amenities. The Association Members cannot be compelled to accept registries of undeveloped land or to shoulder arbitrary EFCC. The Opposite Party No. 3/GDA, though proceeded ex-parte, is the sanctioning and monitoring authority and must clarify the status of the revised layout, as the sudden change further prejudices purchasers. Accordingly, the Complainants pray that this Commission reject the Opposite Parties' defence, declare the EFCC demand illegal and direct immediate development and hand-over of plots (or alternate plots at original cost) along with other reliefs as prayed.
14. Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 has argued that the GDA sanctioned the original DPR and lay-out and several amended plans. More than one thousand plots were carved out and, to date, over 100 Sale Deeds have been executed and registered in favour of purchasers who cleared their contractual dues. The Complainant-Association comprises only 21 purchasers, most of whom have paid barely 50% of BSP and have been in persistent default despite repeated demand notices and reminders. Because the payment schedule in every allotment/plot-buyer Agreement is time-linked, timely clearance of instalments is a sine-qua-non for demarcation, registration and possession. The parties who honoured the schedule received possession as early as the first phase possession call of Aug-Sept 2010. The allegations of delay therefore rings hollow as the Developer cannot register or hand over plots to Allottees who, for years, have neither remitted the balance BSP nor statutory heads such as External Facility Connectivity Charges. The EFCC of 4,930 per sq. yd. is computed strictly on the basis of GDA norms and a certified Architect's cost estimate. The initial "EDC" collected was only a part-payment. No Member has paid even a rupee toward EFCC yet demands "world-class facilities", ignoring that plots were contracted on an "as-is-where-is" basis. The project is payment-linked, not construction-linked and non-paying Allottees cannot claim deficiency of service; That some Complainants purchased through resale and are bound by the original Allottees' obligations. One such signatory, Mr. Rajeev Kapoor, transferred all rights to a new Allottee, Mr. Nivas Tyagi under an MoU duly recognised by the Company, the Complaint is thus vitiated by mis-joinder. The Association withheld these facts, misled the Commission and exaggerated claims to drag the matter within its pecuniary jurisdiction. A prior Consumer Complaint regarding the same project, in "Nitishree Victim's Welfare Association v. M/s Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,CC/149/2013" was finally adjudicated by this Commission on 13.04.2022 and therefore in view of the Larger Bench ruling in "Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure, CC/97/2016", no fresh representative complaint is maintainable.
15. Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No. 3 has argued that the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA), is a statutory body charged only with the planned development of Ghaziabad. It has never entered into any Contract, whether written, oral or implied, with the Complainant-Association or its Members, nor has it rendered, for consideration, any "service" to them within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Allottees' relationships, including payment of BSP, EDC and other amounts, arise exclusively out of bilateral Agreements executed between the Complainants and Opposite Party No. 1 and 2. The Allotment Letters on record bear only the Developer's name and GDA is not a signatory to, or beneficiary of, those documents and therefore enjoys no privity of contract with the Complainants; That under Section 2(g) of the Act, "deficiency" presupposes a contractual or statutory obligation owed by the service-provider to the Consumer.
16. Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No. 3 has further argued that no statute imposes upon GDA any quality-or-performance obligations toward third-party purchasers in a private township, and GDA has never undertaken, contractually or otherwise, to provide such services. Its role is confined to scrutinising and sanctioning the Developer's layout plans and granting licences. The execution of on-site development works rests squarely with the Developer, and should the Developer default in its obligations, any remedial action lies between the Developer and the purchasers, or falls within GDA's regulatory discretion, but cannot be a ground for a Consumer dispute against GDA; That because the Consumer Protection Act contemplates disputes only between a "Consumer" and the trader or service-provider from whom he has bought goods or hired services, GDA having received no consideration and provided no service to the Complainants is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The Complaint therefore discloses no cause of action against GDA, and its name should be struck from the array of parties.
17. In the considered opinion of this Commission, the central controversy in the present Consumer Complaint is now confined to Prayer (d), that whether the demand raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 for External Facility Connectivity Charges (EFCC) of Rs. 4,930/- per Sq. Yd. from the Complainant Association's Members is justified under the governing contractual framework. After a careful evaluation of the pleadings, evidence, affidavits, and submissions made by all parties, this Commission finds that the said demand is wholly without merit, arbitrary, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
18. To begin with, it is pertinent to note that the direction of this Commission dated 21.11.2023 specifically called upon the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 to furnish a sworn Affidavit indicating the precise basis and methodology by which the EFCC amount of 4,930/- per sq. yd. was computed. In response, an Affidavit dated 25.06.2024 was filed by an Authorized Representative of the Developer, and not by any qualified Architect or statutory Authority. This fact alone significantly dilutes the evidentiary value and credibility of the Affidavit. Moreover, the figures presented therein, including component-wise costs for roads, electrification, drainage, and connectivity infrastructure, were not supported by any documentary records issued or validated by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA), which is the competent sanctioning Body. No cost estimate, work order, or budgetary approval from GDA has been placed on record to support the amount demanded. This failure is detrimental to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2's case, especially in light of the statutory mandate that such charges, if any, must either be explicitly mentioned in the original buyer Agreement or be in consonance with a notified schedule approved by the local development Authority.
19. Further, this Commission finds force in the Complainant's submission that the EFCC demand of Rs. 4,930/- per sq. yd. was never part of the original Allotment Letters or plot-buyer Agreements. These Agreements clearly delineated the components of the total consideration, which included Basic Sale Price (BSP) and External Development Charges (EDC), both of which were to be paid as per Ghaziabad Development Authority's prevailing norms. No clause, including Clause 13 of the Agreement relied upon by the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2, envisaged or anticipated any future levy of EFCC. The plea of the Developer that the initial EDC covered only a portion of the costs and the balance is now recoverable under EFCC is nothing but an afterthought. The terms of the Agreement form the binding charter between the parties and any subsequent unilateral imposition of charges not contemplated therein, and unsupported by authority, is impermissible.
20. This Commission is also mindful of the fact that the Complainants have never denied their obligation to pay the legitimate External Development Charges (EDC) in accordance with GDA norms, and remain willing to pay all dues validly arising under the original Agreement. However, the EFCC in question fails the test of fairness and reasonableness. It does not flow from the Contract, is not supported by any statutory directive, and was neither discussed nor disclosed at the time of allotment. It thus amounts to an arbitrary imposition, which is squarely prohibited by settled principles of Consumer law and contract jurisprudence.
21. As regards the role of Opposite Party No. 3/GDA, this Commission finds that no cause of action arises against it. The GDA has not entered into any Agreement with the Complainants, rendered no service to them for consideration, and its functions are confined to sanctioning and regulating the overall development. This Complaint does not raise any issue of violation by GDA of its statutory duties, nor is it a Public Interest Litigation. The presence of GDA as a party is, therefore, unwarranted, and the Complaint stands dismissed against it.
22. Consequently, this Commission holds that the demand raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 for payment of External Facility Connectivity Charges (EFCC) amounting to 4,930/- per sq. yd. is wholly unjustified and arbitrary. The same is accordingly quashed and declared unenforceable against the Complainant Association's Members. The Complainants are not bound to pay any such EFCC amount as a condition precedent for possession or registration of their respective plots.
23. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 are therefore directed to hand over physical possession of the plots and execute Conveyance Deeds in favour of each Member of the Complainant Association within 6 weeks from the date of this Order, subject only to payment of the balance Basic Sale Price and valid EDC as originally agreed. In addition, the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 shall pay compensation to each Member of the Association at the rate of 6% p.a. on the amounts deposited by them, calculated from the respective dates of payment until the date of actual possession. The amount of compensation payable and the dues, if any, recoverable from the Complainants shall be mutually set-off. In the event of non-compliance within the stipulated time, the interest payable on the due amounts shall stand enhanced to 9% p.a. for any outstanding amount(s).
24. The Complaint is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. The complaint is dismissed against the Opposite Party No. 3/GDA.
25. Parties to bear their own costs.
26. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.
..................J A. P. SAHI PRESIDENT ..................J SUDIP AHLUWALIA MEMBER