Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5122 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Brij Pal Sharma
RESPONDENT:
Ghaziabad Development Authority
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/08/2005
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & H.K. SEMA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C ) No. 22736 of 2002
WITH
Civil Appeal No.549 of 2003
AND
Contempt Petition No.614 of 2004 in C.A.No.549 of 2003
H.K.SEMA,J
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) 22736 of 2002
Leave granted.
The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 26.4.2002 passed by
the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘the
Commission’) in Revision Petition No. 1460 of 2000.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:
The respondent authority, namely the Ghaziabad Development
Authority, floated a Scheme called Karpoori Puram Scheme for allotment of
housing plots under the Self Financing Scheme. Pursuant thereto, the
appellant applied for a plot of land measuring an area of 90 sq. mtrs. This
was sometime in the month of July, 1991. On 30th July, 1994, the appellant
deposited a sum of Rs. 96,948 as total and final payment (i.e. Rs. 81,020/- as
actual cost and Rs. 15,948 as interest on delayed payment). The allotment of
the plot was due sometime in 1997. However, the land in question could
not be allotted to the appellant on the ground that the Karpoori Puram
Scheme had been cancelled and a new scheme had been floated by the name
of Swarn Jayanti Puram. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed complaint to
the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission, which
after considering the facts of the case, inter-alia, directed refund of the
amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
The grievance of the appellant is that in the guise of the cancellation
of Karpoori Puram Scheme another scheme was floated styled as Swarn
Jayant Puram over the same plot of land with a view to deprive the innocent
citizens of their due share for allotment of plot in their favour for which they
had deposited the amount and had legitimate expectations of getting plot of
land in their favour. According to the appellant, a fraudulent practice has
been played by the respondent upon the innocent law abiding citizens,
thereby earning wrongful gain at the cost of wrongful loss to the helpless
and innocent citizens.
In fact, in an identical case, cancellation of Karpoori Puram Scheme
had been considered by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development
Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 wherein this Court had
deprecated the manner in which the statutory authority had dealt with the
public interest as sought to be done in the present case. This Court in the
facts and circumstances of that case had held that the grant of interest @
18% per annum by way of damages and compensation was quite justified.
In paragraph 21 of Balbir Singh’s case (supra), this Court held as under:
"21. In a scheme known as "Karpuripuram Scheme" plots were
allotted, monies collected. However, thereafter the Scheme was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
cancelled. In some of the matters we have seen that the District
Forum has recorded that the authority could give no explanation
as to why the Scheme was cancelled. Before us some sort of
explanation is sought to be given. In our view, irrespective of
whether there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies
must be returned with interest at the rate of 18%. We say so
because it is clear that even if the body has not already floated
another scheme on the same land it is clear that the body is
going to derive great profit from this land and therefore
compensating the allottee with interest at 18% per annum is just
and fair."
In our view, therefore, having regard the facts and circumstances of
the case in hand are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Balbir
Singh (supra). In this view of the matter, we are of the view that nothing
remains to be considered further, though we deprecate the conduct of the
concerned authority, as already pointed out.
For the reasons aforestated, the appeal stands dismissed with no order
as to costs.
Civil Appeal No. 549 of 2003
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
28.5.2002 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereinafter ‘the Commission’) in Revision Petition No. 460 of
1999.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:
A Scheme known as Govindpuram Scheme was floated by the
Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short ‘GDA’) on 2.10.1988 for
residential houses and plots. Pursuant thereto, the appellant applied for a
plot on 31.10.1988 measuring 200 sq. mtrs. and paid the registration amount
of Rs. 13,000/- and costs Rs. 1,27,000/- on 31.10.1988. On 31.7.1989, the
GDA confirmed the allotment of plot measuring 200 sq. mtrs. in favour of
the appellant. The GDA also directed the appellant to deposit the balance
amount in six half-yearly instalments commencing from 5.8.1989 and
ending on 30.3.1992 with interest @ 15% per annum in the self financing
scheme by way of the reservation letter. It is stated that the appellant had
deposited the entire amount without any default. It is further stated that the
total amount paid by the appellant comes to Rs. 1,27,000/- towards cost of
the plot and Rs. 23,100/- as interest totaling to Rs. 1,50,100/-. Despite
assurances that the appellant will be intimated about the actual date of
possession, no intimation was received by the appellant even upto 2002. It
is stated that instead, the Vice-Chairman, GDA called a Press Conference on
10.9.1994 stating that the delivery of possession to allottees of Govindpuram
Scheme would not be made, due to the reason that the GDA was facing
shortage of funds on account of which work of laying sewer lines,
construction of roads and electrification work was incomplete.
Per contra, it was contended on behalf of the GDA that the possession
of the plot in question could not be delivered to the allottee as the stay order
granted by the Allahabad High Court on 24.4.1991 remained in force upto
16.12.1993 and that during the period the stay order was operative, the
development and the construction work was stalled. In the given facts and
circumstances of the case, the Commission awarded interest @ 18% per
annum on the refunded amount by way of damages and compensation.
The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the Commission
has awarded interest @ 18% per annum only on the refunded amount but
failed to direct the GDA either to hand over the allotted plot or in alternate
allot a plot in the subsequent scheme at the cost, to be charged from the
appellant, who had applied for in the original scheme. In our view, this
contention is not tenable, as the appellant is not permitted to say that he is
entitled both the best of the world. The interest at the rate of 18% is granted
by way of damages and compensation for non-allotment of plot of land.
In the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh
(2004) 5 SCC 65 facts of this case have also been considered elaborately by
this Court (in para 12 at page 82 SCC) justifying the grant of interest @ 18%
per annum by way of damages and compensation.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, as recited above, we
are clearly of the view that the grant of interest @ 18% per annum was
justified in the present case also.
In that view of the matter this case is also covered by the decision in
Balbir Singh’s case (supra).
In this case also, admittedly, an interim order granted by the
Allahabad High Court was in operation for the period from 24.4.1991 to
16.12.1993. The Commission held that no interest is payable for the
aforesaid period basing on the report submitted by the Vice-Chairman of the
authority that the development/construction work was prevented by the said
stay order and because of that the authority could not deliver possession to
anybody. We have accepted the said finding of the Commission in
paragraph 25 (at page 86 SCC) of our judgment in Balbir Singh (supra).
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, as recited above, we
are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs.
We, however, clarify that dismissal of the appeal should not be
construed as approval of the conduct of the statutory authority in the manner
in which it is sought to be done. The statutory authority, like GDA, being
the State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution, is duty bound to
act in a manner, which would benefit the public interest, overlooking the
private interest. It is trite law that when the private interest is pitted against
the public interest, the later must prevail over the former. If such instances
are brought to the notice of the court in future, they would be examined on
their own merits.
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 614 of 2004
In Civil Appeal No. 549 of 2003
In view of our order in Civil Appeal No. 549 of 2003, the contempt
petition does not survive and it is accordingly closed