ASHOK TAYAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not necessary to refer to the facts of the complaint in detail because we are upholding the preliminary objections of Opposite Party No. 1 - Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA'). Suffice it to say that the complainants were the highest bidders in an action held on 28th November, 1989 by the DDA in respect of a commercial plot. Possession of the plot was delivered to the complainants on 9th November, 1990. On 13th April, 1991 the complainants paid the remaining bid price and also obtained perpetual lease executed on duly stamped papers. However, the DDA has not got the perpetual lease deed registered. On one of the visits to the plots, the complainants observed that the Postal authorities have displayed the Board on the plot which reads as "POST OFFICE PLOT, Owner CPMG, Delhi Circle". The complainants filed a Civil Writ in the High Court of Delhi in which the Assistant Director 2 of the office of the Chief Post Master General averred in his counter that the said plot has been sold to the Postal Department and the payment of the price of the plot was made on 9th July, 1982. The complainants grievance is that they are consumers and much inconvenience has been caused to them by the DDA by the above acts. The complainants prayed for various sums under different heads for the alleged negligence.

(2.) THE plea of the opposite parties is that the transaction in dispute is an outright sale of immovable property at an auction and it is not therefore, a transaction involving goods or services as defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits it was pleaded that the Institutional Branch of the DDA charged with responsibility of allotting institutional lands to various Government and private agencies under DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 had inadvertently allotted the plot to the Posts and Telegraph Department in 1980. However, as the plot is for commercial use, the branch of the DDA charged with the responsibility of allotting/auctioning the commercial plots under the said rules put the said plot to public auction on 28th November, 1989. It was admitted that the complainants were the highest bidders in the auction and possession was delivered to them on 9th November, 1990. It was also pleaded that efforts were being made for allotting some other plot to the Postal and Telegraph Department.

(3.) IN the light of above discussions, we dismiss the present complaint but make no order as to costs.