OM PRAKASH GOEL vs UTTAR PRADESH Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

THE petitioner in this case - Om Prakash Goel has come before this Commission against the impugned order of the State Commission which has set aside the order passed by the District Forum, Ghaziabad, District Forum''s order was in favour of the Petitioner who was before the District Forum as the original complainant.

ACCORDING to the petitioner, the facts in brief are as follows: Petitioner is a Member of the Naya Kunj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Ghaziabad, vide letter dated 30.7.1999, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as ''Parishad'') - respondent in this case informed that 30 plots in Sector 12 Vasundara Scheme, Ghaziabad were available for allotment to members of the Society on 10% extra payment as ''Tatkal Fee''. On 31.7.1999, Petitioner was allotted Plot No. 12/260 measuring 162 sq. mtrs for Rs. 4,86,000 plus 10% Tatkal Fee. He was asked to deposit Rs. 5,16,000 after deducting Rs. 18,000 already paid by him as Registration amount. Vide letter dated 20.9.1999, the Parishad informed that he could avail payment in easy instalments with 18% interest. According to this scheme 30% of the total amount was to be paid before 30.10.1999 and the remaining amount was to be paid 24 quarterly instalments with 18% interest thereon. Petitioner deposited the amount as given below: 1. 30.10.1999 Rs. 1,60,380 30% of the total amount 2. 12.11.1999 Rs. 1,56,220 3. 29.11.1999 Rs. 2,00,000

IN all by 29.11.1999, the Petitioner had deposited a total amount of Rs. 5,16,600 with the Respondent including 10% for Tatkal Fee. The basic complaint of the Petitioner was that despite the full payment made by him on 29.11.1999, he was not given the possession of the plot till 14.5.2001 i.e. after a delay of nearly 11/2 years. According to him he should not have been charged the extra 10% as Tatkal Fee, if possession was to be delivered to him after almost 11/2 year. This delay according to the petitioner is a deficiency in service for which he filed a complainant before the District Forum. He has also claimed interest on the amount paid by him to the Parishad in view of the Supreme Court''s judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65.

WHILE the complaint was allowed by the District Forum, the State Commission set aside the order of the District forum.

AGGRIEVED by this, the Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition before us.

THE Parishad who is the Respondent before us has made the following written submissions:

LAND allotment was done early on the request of the Naya Kunj Cooperative Housing Society, Ghaizabad, of which petitioner is a Member. The plots were to be handed over to the Society after completion of development work. The plots were allotted early at the pre-developed stage on the request of the Society only after completion of development works by the Parishad.

ALLOTMENT letter was issued on 31.7.1999. Again on the request of the Managing Committee of the Naya Kunj Cooperative Housing Society, a decision was taken by the Housing Commissioner to stay the free hold charges till the execution of the lease deed of the plots allotted. The Petitioner was further informed vide letter dated 3.12.1999 that full payment had been received in the Parishad''s account and that he would have to deposit Rs. 58,380 before the execution of the lease deed in respect of his plot. Giving a specific reply to the allegation of the Petitioner that despite deposit of the amount on 20.9.1999, the possession was not delivered till 14.5.2001, the Respondent has contended that allotment of plots to the Naya Kunj Cooperative Housing Society at the developing stage was made on the request of the Managing Committee of the Society, which apprehended an increase in the land price in future. The development work on the plot was finally completed in March 2001and intimation was given to all Members of the Society about progress in development works in January-February 2001, as result of which, most of the members took possession of their plots by 31.3.2001. Respondent in his written submission has stated that land price of the plot if allotted after the development work would have been Rs. 4800 per sq. mtr as against Rs. 3300 per sq. mtr, the rate at which the Society was allotted these plots before it was fully developed.

THE District Forum in its order has treated the petitioner on a distinct footing vis-a-vis other members of the Naya Kunj Cooperative Housing Society, because, the petitioner had paid the entire amount on or before 29.11.1999 and had not availed himself of the benefit of 24 easy instalments. Moreover, according to the District Forum Tatkal Fee means payment on the one hand and immediate receipt of the possession on the other. It considered 1.4.2000 as the outer limit, upto which the complainant could have waited for obtaining the possession of the plot. If he did not get it by this date, he was entitled to get interest on the entire amount paid by him towards the cost of the plot (excluding Tatkal Fee) till the possession of the plot on 14.5.2001. The District Forum determined the interest @ 7% per annum. They also awarded an amount of Rs. 500 as cost of litigation to the Petitioner.

THE State Commission in its impugned order ruled that there was no delay in any manner, because the final payment was made by the Petitioner on 2.4.2000 and the possession was handed over on 14.5.2001. In fact it may be pointed out by us there is an error on the part of the State Commission regarding the date on which the amount was paid; it was 29.11.1999 and not 2.4.2000.

IN any case after hearing the arguments of both the parties, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum giving relief to the Respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission, the present revision petition has been filed before us.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on 9th August, 2010 and have considered the relevant document/evidence on record. At the outset we are rather surprised to note that none of the parties have been able to clearly spell out what exactly the Tatkal Scheme was and how it was different from an ordinary scheme. In fact, the Respondent (Parishad) could not even produce a copy of the said Scheme. "Tatkal" is a Hindi word, which generally means immediate but how immediate can "immediate" be depends upon the context of its use. The meaning assigned to it by the District Forum would have perhaps been apt if it was in the context of purchase of an item readily available for sale or purchase of a railway ticket, but this interpretation cannot hold good when it comes to buying a piece of land which is to be acquired, developed, and then given for allotment. In the present case, Tatkal appears to simply mean that members of the Cooperative Society could take possession of their allotted plots immediately after making payment of the full amount so as to avoid steep price escalation of the plots in the near future. For this purpose 10% Tatkal Fee was levied. It was also prudent on the part of the Society to seize the opportunity to get the undeveloped plots allotted first and thereafter wait for the delivery of the developed plots to its Members. This is further supported by the contention of the Respondent that by March 2001, the price of the land in question had already shot up to Rs. 4800 sq. mtr whereas Members of the Society got it for Rs. 3,300 sq. mtr, including the Tatkal charges. This fact have not been controverte by the Petitioner.

IN the light of these facts and circumstances, we feel that the District Forum erred in interpreting the word "Tatkal" in the present scheme which involved development and allotment of land and by ignoring the obvious benefit that the Petitioner and other members of the Society reaped by early booking of the plots, on the clear understanding that the actual possession would be delivered to them only after the plots were fully developed.

UNDER these circumstances, the time of about 1 1/2 years taken between the final payment by the Petitioner and his taking possession of land was both reasonable and quite prompt.

THE State Commission has not given a speaking order, but in its judgment it has set aside the order of the District Forum, which we feel is justified in the light of the observations made by us in the preceding paras. To sum up the Revision Petition is rejected and the impugned order is upheld with no order as to cost. Ordered accordingly. Revision Petition dismissed.