MAN MOHAN SHARMA Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two cross revision petitions against the common order of 14th September, 1993 of the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh in Appeals No. 24-SC/93 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Man Mohan Sharma and Appeal No. 1518-SC/92Man Mohan Sharma v. Ghaziabad Development Authority. For disposal of these revision petitions, we will describe the original complainant before District Forum Shri Man Mohan Sharma as the petitioner and the original Opposite Party before the District Forum viz. Ghaziabad Development Authority as the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 65,000/- in 1988 for the allotment of a MIG flat in double storeyed blocks. He was duly registered for allotment of a flat under the scheme. Subsequently in exercise of its powers under the scheme, the GDA amended the terms and conditions of the scheme in public interest and built three-storeyed houses instead of two-storeyed houses in some blocks/pockets. In consequence, the petitioner in September, 1991 was issued an allotment cum possession letter in respect of a flat in a three-storeyed block on depositing the balance lease money and possession being given on 15.11.92. However, the complainant refused to accept this allotment in a three-storeyed block and asked for the refund of the money deposited by him. He filed a complaint against the respondent GDA in the District Forum at Ghaziabad. The District Forum ordered the following reliefs to be granted to the complainant;

(3.) THE parties went up in appeal against District Forum's order before the State Commission who modified the order of the District from as under. (i) Interest on the sum of Rs. 65,000/- deposited in 1988 was disallowed as not being justified keeping in view the fact that respondent GDA was going to hand over possession of a flat at the original price to the petitioner. (ii) A compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner provided he takes possession of a flat in a three-storeyed blofck. Both the parties have appealed against the order of the State Commission.