Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.      The opposite party has filed its separate written replies in both the complaints on 30.12.2019, in which, booking of the plots, allotment of the plots on 28.02.2011, change of allotments on 12.08.2014, execution of Confirmation Agreements on 06.01.2015 and the deposits made by the complainants, have not been disputed. The opposite party stated that Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (the YEDA) had allotted Plot No. TS-06 (area 100.97 acre), Sector 22-D, Yamuna Expressway, vide letter No.26/YEA-RT-021/2011 dated 17.02.2011 and executed lease deed dated 27.03.2012 of the above land for a period of 99 years in favour of the opposite party. Possession Certificate was issued on 28.03.2012. However, the farmers challenged land acquisition proceedings in Allahabad High Court, in different writ petitions, in which, interim orders, staying their dispossession, were granted. The farmers, therefore, did not permit for development work on the spot. Due to which, neither the YEDA could development external infrastructure nor the opposite party could do internal development. The YEDA informed the opposite party about the stay orders, through letter dated 03.08.2012. The opposite party wrote letters dated 08.08.2012 and 02.01.2013 to the YEDA, to declare "zero period" from the date of allotment till the peaceful physical possession is handed over for the purposes of realization of instalments of lease premium. The YEDA, finding that substantial portion of the land was still in occupation of the farmers, declared "zero period" from 27.03.2012 to 29.01.2013, vide letter dated 04.02.2013. The opposite party again vide letter dated 24.07.2013 pointed out that out of total 408622 sq. metres land 84277.9089 sq. metres land was still under litigation and the opposite party could not get physical possession over it. The YEAD raised demand of Rs.65/- crores vide letter dated 16.08.2013. The opposite party again vide letter dated 29.08.2013 pointed out that possession over 84277.9089 sq. metres land was not given. The YEAD again raised demand of above amount with penal interest, vide letter dated 20.08.2014. The opposite party made representation dated 24.09.2014. The YEDA, then vide letter dated 01.12.2014, demanded "No Litigation Incentive" @Rs.1770/- per sq. meter. The opposite party challenged this demand vide letter dated 28.05.2015 and also requested for declaring "zero period" till the delivery of possession over remaining area of the land. The Board of the YEDA, in its meeting dated 28.03.2016, decided to declare "zero period" in respect of the area of the land, on which, possession could not be handed over due to stay order of High Court, till the delivery of possession over it. The opposite party, vide letter dated 18.04.2016, supplied details of the land to the YEDA over which possession was not handed over. The opposite party again moved a representation dated 01.02.2017, for declaring "zero period" till the delivery of possession over remaining area of the land and withdrawing demand beyond the agreed rate. The YEDA, vide letter dated 07.03.2017, declared "zero period", in respect of 55285 sq. metres land from 31.03.2013 to 30.12.2016 but again demanded "No Litigation Incentive" @Rs.110/- per sq. metre and directed to deposit Rs.603704238/- by 31.03.2016 as 25% outstanding premium against total area of the land and Rs.192788748/- by 31.03.2017 as 25% outstanding 64% additional compensation against total land. The opposite party challenged the demand of "No Litigation Incentive" in Writ-C No.61358 of 2017, in which, conditional stay order was granted on 20.12.2017. The opposite party deposited Rs.15/- crores with the YEDA, in compliance of stay order. The opposite party developed the land, on which, possession was given to it and applied for issue of "occupation certificate" on 07.12.2017. The YEDA issued "provisional occupation certificate" in respect of the developed land on 29.12.2017, on the condition of issue of 'no dues certificate'. The YEDA, vide letter dated 06.03.2018, informed that reschedulement policy was available till 31.03.2018 but by the same letter cancelled "provisional occupation certificate". The opposite party applied for rescheduling the instalment and also protested for cancellation of "provisional occupation certificate". The YEDA, vide letter dated 13.04.2018, demanded Rs.40.98 crores, for availing reschedulement. The YEAD, vide letter dated 25.04.2018, informed that total Rs.292/- crores was due against the opposite party. The YEDA issued recovery certificate for Rs.305/- crores on 05.10.2018, which was challenged by the opposite party in Writ-C No.35464 of 2008, in which stay order was granted subject to deposit of Rs.17/- crores. The opposite party made a representation dated 04.02.2019, for restoration of "occupation certificate". The plots allotted to the complainants have been developed and complainants can take possession of it. The opposite party will executed sub-lease deed on restoration of "occupation certificate". Delay has occurred for the reasons beyond the control of the opposite party as due to interim order of High Court, delivery of possession and external development work was delayed. Preliminary issues relating to maintainability of the complainants on the ground of alternative remedies under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, being special law on the subject and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to arbitration clause under the agreement, are also raised. The complaints are liable to be dismissed.

7.      The opposite party raised plea that due to interim order of High Court, delivery of possession and external development work was delayed by the authorities, as such, development work was delayed. But in the representations, the opposite party admitted that possession over 269844.21 sq. metres land was handed over and development work was carried on over it but due to dispute relating to deposit of lease premium, "occupation certificate" was delayed and issued on 28.02.2020. Even thereafter possession was not offered. Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711, Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D' Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Givindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725 and NBCC (India) Ltd. Shri Ram Trivedi, (2021) 5 SCC 273, has held that the buyer cannot made to wait for indefinite period for possession.