State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neera Jain vs Delhi Development Authority on 10 March, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 10th March, 2006 Appeal No. A-1574/2000 (Arising from the order dated 09-06-2000 passed by District Forum-V, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No.1857/99) Ms. Neera Jain, Appellant. W/o Shri Dinesh Chand Jain, Through C-7/189, Sector 8, Rohini, Mr. V.K. Jain, Delhi-110085. Advocate. Versus Delhi Development Authority, Respondent. Through Deputy Director(Building), Through Rohini Project, Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Sector-3, Rohini, Advocate. New Delhi-110085. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mitta - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complaint of the appellant for quashing misuse charges, restoration charges and damage charges levied by the respondent-DDA on account of unauthorised constructions raised by the appellant was dismissed vide impugned order dated 9th June 2000.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The grievance of the appellant, in brief, is that the respondent-DDA has to charge in accordance with the government notification dated 26-06-1996 relating to Conversion of leasehold tenure of land into freehold in Delhi- Modification in Scheme. Appellant purchased a property bearing No. C-7/189, Sector 8, Rohini against Power of Attorney 29-06-1992 and on possession he was surprised to know later on that the seller was served with a notice dated 12-1-1993 by the respondent whereby the lease was cancelled with the direction to handover the possession.
4. According to the counsel for the respondent notice was given on 22-08-1995 for unauthorised construction and therefore he was liable to pay the misuse charges, restoration charges and damage charges.
5. Sub clause (c ) of clause 4 of the aforesaid notification provides as under:-
4 ( c ) In cases where applications for sale permission were made by the parties and in the process unearned increase was deposited, but sale deeds have not been executed, pursuant to the sale permission, refund/adjustment of the amount paid by the party will be available in case party approaches the Government for conversion of property on payment of the prescribed conversion fee/surcharge/ additional Conversion fees, as applicable.
In such cases it is further clarified that where property has been re-entered, the re-entry order will be revoked by the lease administering authorities on payment of prescribed charges of Rs. 100/- per day or Rs. 3,000/- per annum and in such cases no damages on account of deemed unauthorised occupation of Government land/property will be levied by the lease administering authority while allowing conversion.
6. In terms of aforesaid notification the respondent was only entitled to claim charges @ Rs. 100/- per day or Rs. 3,000/- per annum and was not entitled to charge damages on account of deemed unauthorised occupation.
7. On the strength of the aforesaid notification we allow the appeal by allowing the respondent only to raise a fresh demand on the basis of the aforesaid notification by charging Rs. 100/- per day or Rs. 3000/- per annum as per its discretion and may also charge restoration charges of Rs. 4,800/- and excess amount already paid by the appellant, if any, shall be refunded within one month.
8. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
10. Announced on the 10th March, 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj