AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society and was registered with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as a Housing Society for allotment of land for giving plots to its members. However, at the instance of the DDA it got convened itself into a Group Housing Society vide No. E-46 (1310)/79/Group Housing/971 dated 21.2.1979 for the allotment of land for construction of flats for its members. It was allotted land measuring 1.583 acres in Sector-IX, Rohini, at the rate of Rs. 54.75p. per sq. meter. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 3,50,824.30 with the DDA as the price of the land. It was, however, given possession of land measuring 1.556 acres. It is pleaded that it, therefore, has become entitled to recovery of Rs. 6,019.75. the excess money paid by it to the DDA.
AFTER the possession of the land was given to the complainant it started constructing the flats. When the construction of the structure is almost complete the defendant claimed the cost of land @ Rs. 110/- per sq. meter. The excess amount at the said rate claimed by the defendant comes to Rs. 3,41,933.75 p. The defendant has also claimed interest on the said amount @ 18% p.a. It is alleged that the defendant was not entitled to claim enhanced rate and interest. It is further pleaded that the complainant approached the defendant for permission to mortgage the property for taking loan from Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Society (D.C.H.F.S.) but it was not granted the same. The permission is required under Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
It is consequently prayed that the defendant be directed not to raise cost of land, not to charge the interest @ 18% per annum and that permission should be granted to it under Section 27 of the Act to mortgage the land with D.C.H.F.S. so that the loan by D.C.H.F.S. be released in its favour.
THE complaint has been contested by the defendant. It has been inter-alia pleaded that the Society was in default earlier due to non completion of formalities. It was revived by the Registrar Cooperative Societies on 21st February ''79. It could complete all the formalities in 1982. THEreafter it was allotted land vide letter dated 9.2.82 at the provisional rates of Rs. 54.75p. per sq. meter. However, later it was decided by the Finance Department of the DDA that revival of the societies prior to commencement of the registration of New Cooperative Group Housing Societies, could not be made the sole criteria for eligibility of the allotment at old rates. It is further pleaded that in the letter dated 9.2.82 it was specifically mentioned that the complainant would pay to the DDA such additional sum or sums towards premium in respect of the land allotted to it as might be decided upon and fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector in reference, or appeal, or both, increase in cost of development and on similar other grounds. It was discovered in 1985 that the complainant had been allotted land at the old rates. In view of the above circumstances, it is pleaded, the complainant was not entitled to get the land @ Rs. 54.75p. per sq. meter but it was entitled to get it @ Rs. 110/- per sq. meter. THE other allegations of the complainant have also been denied by defendant. The first question that arises for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay the enhanced amount claimed by DDA on account of price of land. The defendant has produced a copy of the letter dated 9.2.82 by which the land was allotted to the complainant @ Rs. 54.75p. The clause for enhancement of the price of land as given in the letter is as follows: - "II that the society shall pay to DDA such additional sum or sum towards premium in respect of the land allotted to it as may be decided upon and fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector being enhanced in reference or appeal or both, increase in cost of development and similar other grounds. The decision of the lesser in this regard shall be final."
FROM a reading of the above clause it is evident that the price of the land could be enhanced for the reasons, first that the price of the land was enhanced in reference, or appeal, or both; secondly if there was an increase in cost of development and thirdly on similar other grounds. The increase in the present case has not been made in consonance with any of the aforesaid conditions. The contention of the DDA at the time of argument was that the price had been increased as the Government had asked the DDA to charge from the allottees price of the land at the enhanced rate and the DDA was bound by the decision of the Government. However, it was pleaded by it that it was decided by the Finance Department that the revival of the society prior to commencement of the registration of New Cooperative Group Housing Society could not be made criteria for eligibility of the allotment at old rates. In my opinion, none of the said grounds authorised the DDA to increase the price, as these do not find place in the terms and conditions on which the land was allotted to the complainant. After taking into consideration the above circumstances, I am of the view that the defendant is not entitled to enhance the price of the land. The second question that arises for decision is whether the complainant is entitled to refund of any amount. It is not disputed that the complainant has been charged price for land measuring 1.583 acres whereas it has been granted possession of land measuring 1.556 acres. If it has been granted possession for lesser area than that allotted, it is entitled to the refund of the excess amount paid by it. Consequently I am of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs. 5985.00 from the respondent The third question that arises for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to get permission for mortgaging the property under Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 for the purpose of raising loan from D.C.H.F.S.
THE complainant urged before us that the DDA is similar circumstances had granted permission to the Cooperative Societies to raise loans by mortgaging the properties of the Society. However, no such instance has been produced on the record. THE complainant may produce such instance before the D.D.A. I trust that if such instance is brought to the notice of the concerned officer permission to mortgage the land would be granted by the D.D.A. to the complainant as well.
FOR the aforesaid reasons I partly accept the complaint and direct the D.D.A. not to charge the enhanced amount from the complainant and to refund an amount of Rs. 5985.00 to it. The D.D.A. shall also pay cost to the complainant, which I assess at Rs. 500/-. B.L. Anand, Member- I do not agree to the above findings on account of the following facts and reasons:- 1. It was the admitted fact on record that the complainant could complete the formalities in 1982 and that thereafter only they were allotted the land vide letter dated 9.2.82 on provisional rates of Rs. 54.75 per square meter. It was made amply clear in the said letter that they would pay to D.D.A. the additional sum towards premium of land and that the rates being charged at that time were provisional.
It is also a well known fact that "President of India" and not the D.D.A. was the real owner/lessor of all the Nazul/Lease hold lands in the metropolitan under para 2 at page 4 ibid it has been discussed that Govt. asked D.D.A. to charge from the allottees the enhanced rates. In the instant proceedings, the complainant has not made the "President of India/ Govt. of India and or even the Ministry of Works & Housing. Govt. of India as a necessary party to the proceedings. The enhanced rates were charged by the D.D.A. on behalf of Govt. of India as per policy on the subject prevailing at the relevant time, the complainant by only impleading D.D.A. has failed in agitating their grievance against the appropriate party. As a matter of fact the D.D.A. was only a Manager of the lands and they had to follow the guide lines on the subject as per the decision of Govt. of India from time to time. The complainants were well aware of this fact and had impleaded Union of India and also Delhi Administra- tion as necessary party in their Writ Petition No. 1514/90 involving the same issue before the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi which was dismissed on 15th May, 1990 being not maintainable and which order was available on record.
It is also on record that Cooperative Group Housing Societies are allotted lands at pre-determined rates as fixed by Govt. of India and that at the relevant time in 1982 when the offer was made to the Society the pre-determined rates for this land were Rs. 110/- per square meter. The same could be corrected by the lessor even subsequently as was the case in this complaint particularly so when at page 9 of the offer letter it was made explicity clear that Society was liable to pay the additional sums and that the rates being charged at Rs. 54/- 75 meter were only provisional (refer para 2 of the said letter dated 9.2, 82) and where the rate of interest at 18% was also mentioned.
It is also clear from the affidavit filed by Sh. I.J. Talwar, Commissioner, D.D.A. that some other Societies who was standing on the same footing had paid the balance cost even after the execution of lease deed and as such no discrimination had been caused in the case of complainant Society.
The complainant had not completed the formalities and their case was delayed due to their own shortcoming and it is because of the fact alone that they were given allotment on 9.2.82. How could any one be given the advantage of their own mistake. The Society could thus not claim the earlier concessional rate of Rs. 54/- after having delayed the completion of formalities which situation was a creation of their own failure.
A perusal of the complaint dated 17.7.90 reveals that the Society was convened into Group Housing Society on the "insistance" of D.D.A''. and not at the "Instance" of D.D.A. It need not be discussed that for availing the facilities being offered by the Govt. and D.D.A. to the various Group Housing Societies, it was incumbent upon the said Society to get themselves properly converted into a Group Housing Society in their own interest after completing necessary formalities before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi as per the law and procedure on the subject.
A further scrutiny of their complaint indicates that the complainants have not mentioned anything about their Writ Petition No. 1514/90 filed before the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi which appears to have been dismissed on 15th May, 1990 i.e. prior to their present complaint dated 17th July, 1990. In my view they have suppressed this material fact from the Commission and they have thus not come before us with clean hands.
IN the light of the above discussed facts, their plea does not deserve any consideration and stands rejected. In my view they should be burdened with cost of Rs. 5, 000/- having made frivolous complaint with no merits and having wasted the valuable time of this Commission. Appeal rejected.