GOVIND RAM PURSWAMI vs FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SINCE the matter and issues are common in all the complaints and all the complaints have been decided by a common judgment by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad it is appropriate that all the appeals be decided by a common judgment.

THERE are two sets of appeals, one filed by Faizabad Development Authority and the other filed by complainants against the judgment and order dated 4.9.1994. F.D.A. has filed the appeals on the ground that unless the full payments were made there could have been no order for delivering the possession and further more the rate of interest of 12% is not justified.

On the other hand the complainants have filed the appeals for refund of money with interest as well as some complainants have filed the appeals for delivery of possession.

A scheme by FDA was floated in the year 1986 in which there was provision for construction of commercial complex. The complainants moved application for registration after depositing registration amount and they were allotted shops but allotment proceedings could not take place because the land was Nuzul land and some negotiations between FDA and State of U.P. were doing on. It is thus clear that initially the aforesaid scheme could not materialised immediately and the possession could not be delivered because of the fact that the land on which shops were to be constructed and which was earmarked for commercial complex was Nuzul land and in this connection for transferring the ownership the delibrations were pending between FDA and State of U.P. It is also clear that after the Nuzul land being transferred in the name of FDA the allotments were made as per scheme and the complainants deposited their allotment money as well as other money required. Subsequently, it happened that in the year 92 costing was done and the prices of the shops were increased.

THE District Forum has found that the costing finally has been done rightly. THE Hon''ble Apex Court of India has also ruled that unless the costing is arbitrary and erratic it being a policy matter of the development authority it cannot be interfered with. We are satisfied that the costing is not arbitrary and arratic . Thus under the circumstances those complainants who have deposited the money as per enhanced pricing are entitled for possession of the shop. However, it is right of the FDA, that on the basis of the then pricing in 1992 if certain amount is due from those complainants who are ready to take possession only that much balance can be charged by FDA along with interest upto the date of payment. Likewise those complainants who are not interested in getting the allotted shops they are entitled to get back their deposited money along with interest @ 6% from the date of deposit till the date of payment. It has been brought to our notice that in some cases FDA has deposited 80% amount in view of the interim orders passed by this Commission. While refunding the money this amount which has already been paid back, will be adjusted. The rate of interest awarded by District Forum is reduced from 12% to 6%.

ALL the appeals are decided accordingly.

PARTIES will bear their own cost. The original judgment shall be kept in the record of Appeal No. 1788/93 and certified copy whereof shall be kept in the record of all the other appeals which shall also be governed by this judgment and order. Ordered accordingly.