Mohit Gupta vs Director, Greenbay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

Heard Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate, for the complainant and Ms. Sunil Mund, Advocate, for the opposite party.

Mohit Gupta has filed above complaint for directing Greenbay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (i) to refund Rs.14453625/- along with interest @15% compounded quarterly from the date of deposit till the date of refund, (ii) to pay Rs.1000000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) to pay Rs.150000/- as the cost of litigation and (iv) Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances.

The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the opposite party (the developer) was a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. In the year 2011, the developer launched a project of township in the name of “Greenway Golf Village” in plot TS-06, Sector-22-D, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Area, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The complainant booked a plot, in this project on 05.04.2011 and deposited Rs.1230000/-. The developer issued a demand letter dated 19.11.2011, demanding Rs.2820000/-, within 7 days. In this letter, rate was enhanced to Rs.18000/- per sq.yard from 16400/- per sq.yard. The complainant met the developer and informed that neither plot was allotted nor any payment schedule was given and rate has been enhanced. Then the developer, vide letter dated 19.12.2011, cancelled the allotment and forfeited the amount deposited by the complainant. The complainant protested vide letter dated 24.12.2011. Then the developer issued allotment letter on 12.05.2012, informing that first instalment of Rs.1230000/- was due on 12.05.2011. The developer, vide letter dated 13.06.2012, again cancelled the allotment and forfeited the money. The complainant challenged the letter dated 13.06.2012 in CC/239/2012, which was allowed with cost of Rs. one lac, by the order dated 11.11.2013, by this Commission and letter dated 13.06.2012 was set aside and allotment of Plot No.17 (area 750 sq. yard) was restored. The developer was directed to issue fresh allotment letter with revised demand letter. Then the developer issued a fresh allotment letter dated 14.02.2014, in which, the complainant was allotted Plot No.A-17 (super area 750 sq.yds) and a revised payment plan was issued. The builder issued a confirmation letter dated 04.09.2014, in which, it has been mentioned that possession over developed plot would be handed over within 18 months with grace period of 90 days. Thereafter, as per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.14453254/-between 30.03.2015 to 17.11.2015. The complainant wrote an email dated 17.05.2016, inquiring expected date of possession. The developer, vide email dated 18.05.2016, informed that tentative date of possession would be July, 2016. But possession was not given in July, 2016. Then this complaint was filed on 29.08.2016, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the developer.

The developer contested the complaint and filed its written reply on 26.10.2016, in which, material facts have not been denied. It has been stated that the farmer raised agitation in 2011, against acquisition of the land by State Government. They also filed various writ petitions before Allahabad High Court, challenging the land acquisition, in which interim orders had been passed. Although Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, allotted the land of Plot No.-TS-6, Secore-22-D to the developer on 17.02.2011 and executed lease deed dated 28.03.2012, but actual possession over the land could not be handed over due farmer’s agitation and interim orders passed by Allahabad High Court, in various writ petitions filed by the farmers. Due to prevalent force majeure, the development work was being delayed. The farmer’s agitations and interim orders passed by Allahabad High Court had been widely reported in the newspapers time to time. The complainant invested money in this project, knowing entire facts. Possession over the plot in dispute cannot be given, during continuance of interim orders passed by High Court.

The complainant filed their rejoinder reply on 17.11.2016, in which, the material facts stated in the complaint were reiterated. The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence of Mohit Gupta. The developer filed Affidavit of Evidence of Naveen Sharma. Both the parties have filed various documentary evidence. Both the parties have filed their written arguments.

We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The complainant booked the plot, in this project on 05.04.2011 and deposited Rs.1230000/-. Thereafter, as per demand, he deposited Rs.14453254/- between 30.03.2015 to 17.11.2015. However, due to interim orders passed by Allahabad High Court, in various writ petitions filed by the farmers, no progress in the project has been done. There is no possibility that the developer would be able to hand over possession over the developed plot allotted to the complainant, in near future. Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Limba, (2018) 5 SCC 442, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govind Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 (6) SCALE 462, Wg.Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that in case of inordinate delay in offer of possession, the buyer was entitled for refund of money.

ORDER

In view of aforementioned discussions the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest @9% per annum, from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.