VIJAY JYOTI HOUSING PVT. LTD vs L.D.MITTAL

BY this order we propose to dispose of 57 identical appeals raising common questions of law and fact.

DISTRICT Forum-1 by its order dated 24.10.1997 substantially allowed 57 separate complaints which had been clubbed together for the sake of convenience and the leading judgment was recorded in L.D. Mittal v. Vijay Jyoti Housing (P) Ltd. case No. 2239/1994. The opposite parties were M/s. Vljay Jyoti Housing (P) Ltd., opposite party No. 1, Mr. Prem Chand Jain, Managing Director, Mr. Navin Kumar Jain and Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, Directors of the above mentioned Private Limited Company. The case of the complainants was that in March, 1989 the opposite parties advertised in the daily Hindustan Times regarding availability of residential plots in a colony called Naina Enclave being developed by the opposite party situated on G.T. Karnal Road near HSIDC Complex Kundli, DISTRICT Sonepat in the State of Haryana. According to the advertisement which was followed by hand-bills etc. the colony was to comprise of developed plots for residential purposes. The complainants booked plots in the said colony and paid the price thereof. It was, however, found that the colony was not a developed one. It had not been approved by the Authorities under the provisions of the Haryana Restrictions on (Development and Regulation of) Colonies Act, 1971. However, the opposite party executed sale deeds. Quite a few of which were got registered at the expense of the plot buyers. In several cases possession of undeveloped land was delivered to the plot buyers. The complainants, however, discovered that the opposite party had not obtained approval of the concerned Authorities under the aforesaid Act which places an embargo on the development of a "colony" in the State of Haryana and in the absence of such approval of the plots could not be constructed upon for residential houses. Further development was a notification dated 19.6.1992 u/Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Haryana for acquiring chunk of land including the land covered by the so called Naina Enclave. This was followed by a notification u/Sec. 6 of the said Act dated 16/17.6.1993. The complainants approached the DISTRICT Forum for refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite party, further amount spent by them on stamp duty and registration besides amounts spent by some of them on constructing the boundary wall and the installing hand-pump etc. The complaints were resisted. The pleas raised by the opposite parties were that the complaints were barred by limitation; that the Consumer Forum, Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction and that the complaints were bad for mis-joinder, in that Vinod Kumar Gupta, Director had resigned as a Director of the Company in November, 1989 and thereafter he had no concern with the said company. It was further pleaded that the opposite parry was not responsible for the acquisition of the land by the State. According to the opposite party, the land was entered as ''abidi land'' in the Revenue record and it was sold as such and there was no representation made that the land had been approved by the concerned Authorities as a colony under the Haryana Restrictions on (Development and Regulation of) Colonies Act, 1971. The District Forum rejected the various contentions raised by the opposite party and directed the opposite parties to pay the various amounts spent by the complainants alongwith 15% interest from the date of payment of each instalment till realisation besides costs amounting to Rs. 1,000/- in each case.

Aggrieved by the order, the opposite parties have preferred these appeals. We have heard Mr. C. Badrinath Babu, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.N. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents and have carefully gone through the records.

ON behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection has been raised that it was incumbent on the appellants to have filed separate appeals in all the 57 cases and one single appeal is not maintainable, on the ground that 57 separate complaints had been disposed of by a single order. At the time of admission of this appeal it was specifically observed in our order dated 2.12.1997 that, if so advised, the appellants may file separate appeals in respect of each individual complaint disposed of by the common order. Mr. Babu conceded that one single appeal was not maintainable and he undertook to file within a week or so the remaining 56 appeals alongwith necessary application for condonation of delay. We are not inclined to take and non-suit the appellants on the basis of the preliminary objection highly technical view and we proceed on the assumption that the appellants would file separate appeals. This is why we proceed to dispose of the said appeals. The main contention of Mr. Babu, learned Counsel for the appellants is that what was sold was agriculture land and in support of this contention he placed reliance on the recitals in the sale-deed executed in most of the cases. Mr. Babu also contended that the plot buyers must have seen the Revenue record before buying the plots and in the Revenue record the land was described as ''abadi land''. We are unable to accept this contention. The District Forum has extracted the relevant parts of the advertisements in which "plots" were offered in a "colony" called Naina Enclave. In the advertisement appearing in the Hindustan Times dated 25.3.1989, the plots were offered in "Naina Enclave" and the words ''residential declared'' were printed prominently and in bold letters. Mr. Babu was unable to inform us as to what does the word ''declared'' imply. In the absence of any explanation, the aforesaid representation would only be taken to mean that the colony had been declared as a residential colony which, in turn, implies that it had been so declared by the authorities concerned under the law in force. In the circular copy (Annexure II) filed with the complaints the matter was put beyond doubt, and it was specifically stated that the plots offered were "residential plots". The necessary implication is that the land-use of agricultural land for construction of houses had been duly approved by the Competent Authorities. It is settled law that the words "used" must be given their natural meaning as popularly understood. The use of the word plots of sizes vary from 250 sq. yards onwards approved for residential purposes in a colony called Naina Enclave necessarily implied that the colony had been duly approved by the Competent Authorities under the law. A mere recital in the sale-deed that what was being sold was agricultural land or land comprised in the area of an estate as ''abadi land'' did not hold any water in view of the categorical representation made by the opposite party while inviting the public to. buy plots in the colony.

THERE is no dispute that necessary permission under the Haryana Restriction on (Development and Regulation of) Colonies Act, 1971 was never applied for or taken by the opposite parties, and we have no difficulty in repelling the contention of Mr. Babu. The next contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the complainants had been independently following up the question with regard to status of the land-use of the land in question. They had formed an association and had contacted the office of the Dy. Commissioner and all along they knew the status of the land which was the subject-matter of sale. The contention is that when the complainants purchased land with their eyes open, they were estopped from disputing the land which they had purchased in the bargain and they could not raise a claim for the refund of the amount paid to the opposite parties. We find no merit in this contention as well. Most of the transactions in question took place during the years 1989-90. It appears that in course of time the real facts started trickling in and the plot buyers tried to ascertain the facts by contacting various Authorities only to discover that what was sold in the form of plots in the Naina Enclave was only agriculture land. It requires no big argument to show that there is a vast difference of prices in agricultural land, on the one hand, and land approved for construction of residential houses, on the other hand. There is no evidence available on record that at the time when the complainants booked various plots they were aware that they were entering into a bargain for the purchase of agricultural land as distinguished from a developed plot approved for construction of residential houses. In the grounds of appeal it was, inter alia stated that the plot buyers had received compensation from the Land Acquisition Collector in pursuance of the award dated 2.12.1994. The respondents have categorically denied having received a single penny from the Land Acquisition Collector. The correctness of this assertion of the respondents is not disputed by Mr. Babu. All he could say was that the appellants had issued public notices through the Press that the plot-buyers may put forward their claim and receive proportionate compensation for the acquisition of the land from the Land Acquisition Collector. There is, therefore, no dispute that none of the respondents has received any amount towards compensation from the Land Acquisition Collector.

ON behalf of the respondents, our attention was invited to case of one such plot buyer by the name Rajinder Pal Singh Lamba. He filed Case No. 3058/92 against the same opposite party. The complaint was allowed by District Forum-I by its order dated 15.3.1994. Appeal there-against being Appeal No. A-146/94 was dismissed by this Commission by its order dated 17.10.1994 and revision there-against was dismissed in Civil Revision Petition No. 797/94 by the National Commission by its order dated 16.1.1996 and SLT being Civil Appeal No. 8104 / 96 there-against was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 9.4.1996. This precedent furnishes a judicial precedent why the order of the District Forum deserves to be affirmed. No other point was argued.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed with Rs. 250/- each as costs of each respondent. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties as well as District FORum-1. Appeal dismissed with costs.