ARVIND KUMAR vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority And Ors.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.5.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1535 of 2008 - Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Anr. v. Arvind Kumar by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner applied for allotment of plot measuring 495 sq. mt. in Sector 3 & 4 Chi & Phi in pursuance to advertisement of OP/respondent and also deposited registration fee of Rs. 1,55,050/ -. Draw was drawn on 30.4.2004, but complainant was placed at serial No. 4 in waiting list. It was further submitted that as per terms and conditions of the brochure, OP neither refunded money, nor included surrendered plots for allotment and later on included those plots in other scheme for draw held by OP on 17.1.2005. It was further submitted that as per conditions of brochure, number of applicants belonging to farmers category were not much in numbers and OP were required to transfer those plots to general category and ought to have allotted those plots to the applicants on waiting list and complainant standing in waiting list must have got it. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint but admitted deposit of registration money by complainant and draw of plots on 30.4.2004 and further admitted that complainant''s name was at serial No. 4 of the waiting list. It was further submitted that allotment to the persons of waiting list should have been made only if the plot had been surrendered and included in general category. Waiting list was valid only for a period of one year and registration money was liable to be refunded. It was further submitted that no further scheme of the remaining plots of Sector Chi & Phi and Eta was framed, so, complainant was not entitled for allotment of any plot. District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to allot plot measuring 495 sq. mt. under Phi Chi scheme and were further directed that if no such plot is available in the such scheme, other plot of equivalent size in the same type of scheme be allotted to the complainant and complainant was further awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - and Rs. 2,000/ - as cost of the complaint. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per brochure, remaining plots of farmers category were to be transferred to general category applicants and complainant was entitled to allotment of plot and learned District forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as there was no surrender of plots to be transferred to general category, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

IT is admitted case of the parties that complainant falling in general category applied for plot measuring 495 sq. mt., deposited registration money and draw was drawn and he was placed at serial No. 4 in the waiting list. As per brochure, admittedly, there were 57 plots in farmers category (category II) out of which, 18% were reserved to SC/ST applicants and only two applicants were found suitable which were allotted plots and remaining nine plots were transferred in general category of farmers category. Perusal of record further reveals that only 15 applicants were found valid for allotment of plots under farmers category and in such circumstances, 42 plots were left in the farmers category which ought to have transferred to the general category according to terms of brochure which reads as under: "2. Farmers Category 0 (Category -II)

12% of the total number of plots are reserved for farmers whose land has been acquired by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority or directly purchased by GNIDA for planned development and the possession has been taken by the Authority on or after 1.4.2002. The farmers are eligible to apply in plot code 01 and 02 to avail the reservation facility. The land should be within the notified area of Greater Noida on the date of acquisition / purchase. The detailed eligibility conditions and the procedure for allotment under this category shall be enumerated separately and the application forms with terms & conditions shall be available from 16 February, 2004 till 16 March, 2004 at the listed Bank Branches of Greater Noida.

Note: In the Farmers Category (Category -II), 18% the plots will

be reserved for SC/ST applicants. In case the number of applications are less than the number of plots available for the reserved categories the balance available plots shall be transferred to the general applicants of the farmers category and if still the applicants are less than the No. of plots available to the farmers category the balance shall be transferred to the General Category (Category -I) applicants.

B -2 PROCEDURE OF ALLOTMENT

Allotment would be made by the draw of lots within each eligible category. The draw of lots for allotment of specific plot numbers to the allottees shall also be done along with the draw for allotment. Waiting list of upto 25% of the total number of plots available under each category shall be made which shall be utilized against the surrender of plots, if any, by the successful allottees of this scheme in serial order. The waiting list shall remain valid only for one year from the date of draw."

If these 42 plots were stood transferred in general category, complainant who was at serial No. 4 in the waiting list must have been allotted plot and learned District Forum rightly directed OP to allot plot.

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that waiting list was to be exhausted only against surrendered plots as per scheme. This argument is devoid of force because after transferring plots of farmers category allotment should have been made and waiting list of 25% of the total number of plots should have been made and if any person had surrendered plot in the eligible category (general category) it could have been utilized for allotment to waiting list holder. Inspite of availability of plots after transferring plots of farmers category to general category complainant was unnecessarily put in waiting list and was denied allotment of plot which amounts clearly deficiency on the part of OP.

OP in paragraph 11 of its written statement submitted that it is authority''s prerogative to impose any condition or remove any condition from any scheme whatsoever which it deems fit. This reply is contrary to law because OP had no right to change terms and conditions of brochure without any cogent reason. Once parties apply for allotment of plot and draw was drawn in pursuance to scheme, OP was bound to adhere conditions of brochure and was bound to allot plot to the complainant. Learned State Commission in its order has wrongly observed that plots were allotted to the applicants on waiting list of farmers category (general) and accordingly no plots were left for the applicants of general category -I and consequently it was not possible to consider name of unsuccessful applicants for allotment of plots of 495 sq. mt. including the complainant. Perusal of record clearly reveals that more plots were available in farmers category than the eligible candidates so there was no question of waiting list on farmers category and after allotment of plots to eligible candidates of farmers category, remaining plots were required to be transferred to general category first and should have been allotted to persons in waiting list. Strictly speaking, next 42 plots from farmers category which were to be transferred to general category, should have been allotted to remaining applicant and only after that waiting list upto 25% of the plots should have been prepared and complainants name should not have been put in waiting list, but straight forwardly he should have been allotted plot.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, impugned order is liable to set aside and order of District Forum is to be upheld. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 3.5.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1535 of 2008 - Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Anr. v. Arvind Kumar is set aside and order of District Forum dated 19.6.2008 - Arvind Kumar v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority is upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.