Ghaziabad
Development Authority Vs. Meera Sanger [2009] INSC 1744 (19 November 2009)
Judgment
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7030 OF 2002 GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY .......APPELLANT(S) Versus
O R D E R
1.
Ghaziabad Development Authority, the appellant herein ('the
Authority', for short) floated a housing scheme in Govindpuram. In the year
1989, the respondent applied for a 200 sq. mt. plot. The Authority issued a
reservation letter. There were some delay in payment of some instalments.
According to the respondent, all instalments have been paid with interest.
2.
The respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum in the
year 1993 seeking (i) delivery of the plot, (ii) award of interest at 18% per
annum on the deposited amount, and (iii) compensation for the delay. The
Authority resisted the petition contending that in view of a stay order issued
by the High Court in writ petitions filed by the land owners, the Authority
could not deliver the plot. The District Forum, by order dated 31.7.1997,
directed delivery of possession of plot within three months and also awarded
interest at 18% per annum on the amount deposited. The appeal filed by the
Authority was dismissed by the State Commission on 10.3.2000. The revision
filed by the appellant was dismissed by a non-speaking order dated 14.3.2002
which is impugned in this appeal. The order merely states that in view of the
decision in Haryana Petition No. 1197 of 1998), where the Commission had upheld
the interest at 18% per annum, the revision petition was being dismissed. The
various contentions urged by the appellant were not considered. In particular,
the contention that the plot could not be delivered for reasons beyond its
control and that there was no deficiency in service and the further contention
that where delivery of plot is directed, payment of interest at 18% per annum
was not warranted. As the order is a non-speaking order which does not deal
with the issues raised, in the normal course, we would have set aside the order
and remitted the matter to the National Commission.
3.
But at this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent,
however, stated that that would involve further delay and the respondent who
has been waiting for the plot ever since 1989, should not be denied the benefit
of the plot any further. He requested that the matter may be heard and disposed
of finally by this Court. In the special circumstances, we propose to consider
the matter on merits.
4.
However, at this stage, learned counsel for the Authority
submitted that an alternative Plot No.E-3 in Swarn Jayanti Puram Scheme is
allotted to the respondent on 21.6.2000, but respondent did not respond. She
also submitted that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the
plot will even now be offered to the respondent. She stated that instead of
charging the present allotment rate of Rs.7800/- per sq. mt. the Authority will
make the allotment at Rs.2300/- per sq.mt.
which was
the rate prevailing in 2000-2001 when the said Scheme was launched. We are of
the view that the offer made is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The
delay in offering the possession of the plot earlier in 1989 was for reasons
beyond the control of the Authority in view of the stay order which was
operating against the Authority.
The plot
that is now allotted is in a new layout. The Authority has to charge only the
initial allotment rate of that new layout.
5.
In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of
the National Commission and modify the order of the State Commission by
directing the appellant Authority to allot the plot No.E-3, measuring 200 sq.
mts., in the Swarn Jayanti Puram Scheme at the rate of Rs.2300/- per sq. mts.
and deliver the same within three months against payment of balance amount due.
The respondent will be entitled to adjustment of the amounts already paid by
him with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon towards the price of the
plot. It is needless to say that in the circumstances the question of Authority
paying interest on the price deposited at the rate of 18% per annum does not
arise.
.........................J.
( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
.........................J.
New
Delhi;
November
19, 2009. ( K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8516 OF 2002 GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
.......APPELLANT(S) Versus O R D E R Ghaziabad Development Authority, the
appellant herein ('the Authority', for short) launched a housing scheme at
Sanjay Nagar. On the application of the respondent, the Authority issued a
reservation letter on 30.6.1992. Allotment letter was issued on 5.11.1993
showing the final cost of the plot as Rs.1,08,339/-. The respondent did not pay
the lumpsum amount payable before delivery of possession and as on 24.4.1996,
the total amount due was Rs.33,716/- towards the plot, Rs.13,000/- towards
chowkidar charges and Rs.18,713/- towards interest.
As the
payment was not made, the plot could not be delivered.
2.
However, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum in the year
1998 and the District Forum directed the appellant to deliver possession of the
plot within two months and to pay interest at 18% per annum on the amount
deposited from 1.1.1993 till the date of possession, and also pay Rs.2,000/- as
compensation with a further direction, on failure to comply, the Authority
should pay interest at 21% per annum. The District Forum also stated that if
any amount was due by the allottee, the Authority can adjust the same from the
interest payable to the allottee. Even though, the appellant was aggrieved by
the said order, in compliance of the said order it executed the sale deed in
favour of the allottee on 29.5.1999 with a condition that the balance amount
should be paid by the allottee. The possession of the flat was delivered on
16.7.1999.
3. The
appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of by the State Commission by merely
reducing the default interest rate from 21% to 18% per annum by order dated
5.3.2001. The revision filed by the appellant was disposed of by National Commission
by a non-speaking order dated 24.3.2002 disposing of the petition in the light
of its decision in Darsh Kumar upholding the interest rate at 18% per annum.
Various contentions urged by the appellant were not considered by the National
Commission.
4. In
this case, the non delivery was on account of nonpayment of the amount to be
deposited before delivery of possession. It is not in dispute that the
possession of the flat has now been delivered and sale deed also been executed,
even when dues had not been paid.
5. In the
circumstances, we are of the view that the respondent was not entitled to any
interest or damages. 164].
6.
Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part and set aside the order
of the District Forum, as affirmed by the State Commission and the National
Commission and delete the award of interest and award of compensation of
Rs.2,000/-. If any amount is still outstanding from the respondent, it is open
to the Authority to take such action as is available to them in accordance with
law for recovery of the same.
.........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
.........................J.
New Delhi;
November 19, 2009.
( K.S.
RADHAKRISHNAN ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6050 OF 2002 GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
.......APPELLANT(S) Versus O R D E R Ghaziabad Development Authority, the
appellant herein ('the Authority', for short) floated a housing scheme in
Govindpuram named 'Akansha II'. The Authority issued a reservation letter on
26.2.1989 to the respondent.
The
respondent deposited Rs.21,510/- as registration amount. On 29.12.1993,
respondent demanded refund on the ground that the house allotted was not worth
living. The Authority refunded the registration amount deposited by the
respondent on 20.5.1994 after deducting Rs.5,000/- towards cancellation
charges. It did not pay any interest. On a complaint filed by the respondent,
the District Forum, by order dated 9.9.1997, directed refund of the deducted
amount of Rs.5,000/- and also directed payment of interest on the deposited
amount at 18% per annum from the date of deposit till 20.5.1994 alongwith Rs.2,000/-
as costs. The appellant filed an appeal before the State Commission in October
1997. However, as there was no stay, in compliance of the District Forum order,
the Authority deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- as also Rs.79,499/- towards interest.
Thereafter,
the State Commission affirmed the order upholding the interest at 18% per
annum. Revision filed by the appellant has been dismissed by a non-speaking
order following its earlier decision in Darsh Kumar.
2. The
order of the National Commission in Darsh Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 449. In several
other decisions, this court has reduced the interest payable to 9% to 10% per
annum. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that award of
interest at 18% was not warranted and interest at 10% per annum would be just
and reasonable.
3. We,
accordingly, allow this appeal in part and reduce the interest from 18% to 10%
per annum. In all other respects, the order of the District Forum is affirmed.
Consequently,
the Authority shall be entitled to recover back the excess interest paid to the
respondent.
.........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
; .........................J
New Delhi
Back
