K SAKSENA Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the complaint the Opposite Party, Ghaziabad Development Authority (for short GDA) invited applications upto 28th February, 1981 for allotment of residential plots situated in different colonies developed by GDA viz., Nehru Nagar, Raj Nagar, Vijay Nagar Lohia Nagar, Sastri Nagar and Rajendra Nagar through its advertisement published in the Hindustan Times dated 11th February, 1981. Allotment of the plots was to be made by drawn of lots on the terms and conditions contained in the Rules and Regulations enclosed alongwith the application form. Complainant No. 1 Smt. K. Saksena and her husband submitted 8 applications alongwith earnest money of Rs. 500/- with each application on 18thFebruary, 1981 for allotment of one plot in any of the offered colonies except Raj Nagar and Lohia Nagar (it may be mentioned here that Complainant No. 2 is a Consumer Association). In the draw of lots only one application which was in the name of Complainant No. 1 was successful. Plot No. SK -26 measuring 393.32 sq. mts. in Sastri Nagar residential colony at the rate of Rs. 65/- per meter plusRs.2/-persq.mtr.beingthecornerplotwas allotted to her in August, 1981. The cost of the plot of land demanded by GDA was Rs. 26,352.44 and in case of lumpsum payment a rebate of Rs. 1,054.10 was to be given. After deducting Rs. 500/- that was already deposited with the application the net amount payable in lump sum came to Rs. 24,791.34. The said amount alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 60 / - was paid by her on 12th October, 1981 i.e. within the prescribed time. Vide letter dated 18th March, 1986 GDA directed Complainant No. 1 to take possession of the allotted plot of land within three months failing which watch and ward fee was to be charged and after 6 months allotment of plot of land was liable to be cancelled. However, possession of the plot could not be handed over to the Complainant No. 1 due to the existence of one big size water tank of the Irrigation Department on the said plot of land which was not got removed by the GDA. The Complainant No. 1 made requests verbally as well as in writing for removal of the defects on the plot and to render the service as expected by removing the water tank and by handing over possession of the plot to her without

(2.) NY encumbrance. However, GDA did not respond to her request. Complainant No. 1 on 23rd January, 1987 through a lawyer served a legal notice on GDA for handing over possession of the plot of land and payment of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation. GDA vide letter dated 10th March, 1987 allotted another plot No. III-M/45-A, Nehru Nagar measuring about 500 sq. metres in lieu of Plot No. SK-26, Sastri Nagar to Com-plainantNo. 1 and further directed her to deposit Rs. 500/- as transfer fee upto 20th March, 1987. In the said letter it was further stated that the other information was being sent separately. Since then no terms and conditions for changed plot of land were issued to her, it meant that the GDA exchanged the plot on the same terms and conditions as contained the brochure of the year 1980-81 nad press advertisement dated 1 lth February, 1981. Even fairness and reasonableness required this treatment. Though Complainant No.l should not have been asked to deposit Rs. 500/- as transfer fee but under threat she had deposited that amount on 10th March, 1987 and intimated the GDA to deliver possession of exchanged plot. The Complainant No.l also made verbal requests for the site-plan of the plot but she was informed that the same was under preparation. The site-plan of the said plot has not been supplied to her upto this day. Though the Complainant No. 1 had not received any further communication from GDA after 10th March, 1987, she remitted demand draft for Rs. 21,000/- on 21st March, 1987 towards part-payment of the plot of land No. III-M/45-A, Nehru Nagar considering the increase in area. Complainant No. 1 also made requests to GDA to register the said plot in the joint names of herself and her husband to meet the statutory requirements for securing loan by her husband from his employer. However, this request has not been granted by the GDA so far. Vide letter dated 12th May, 1987 GDA made a demand for Rs. 1,78,308/- towards the premium of plot within one month failing which interest at the rate of 18% per annum was to be charged. The demand appeared to have been worked out on the basis of rate prevailing in 1987. The demand letter was not in joint names of herself and her husband and it also did not detail the dimensions of the plot and the rate at the which it was offered to her.

(3.) THE complaint was contested by the Opposite Party i.e. the GDA. It was admitted that possession of Plot No. SK-26 could not be given to Complainant No. 1 because of the placement of a water tank of Irrigation Department and since the same could not be got removed, Plot No. IH-M/45-A in Nehru Nagar was allotted to her on 10th March, 1987. The Complainant herself was liable for the lapse on one ground or the other in not taking possession of the changed plot. Under the Rules escalation in price and demand is permissible.