Plot No. 229, situated in block-L under Scheme – 1 Kakadev was allotted to Shri Hari Varma and Smt. Vijay Laxmi Verma and sale-deed in their favour was executed by the respondent Kanpur Development Authority on 22.02.1978. Subsequently, the aforesaid plot was sold to the complainant Brij Mohan Azmani on 02.08.1989. At that time construction had already been raised on the aforesaid plot. After purchase of the house on 2.08.1989, the complainant submitted an application to the petitioner authority for mutation in his name. The mutation was allowed by the authority but on payment of sum of ₹1,37,713.48/- which comprised ₹1,25,596.48/- towards profit/interest, ₹9,967/- towards transfer amount, ₹2000/- towards fine on more income and ₹ 150/- towards lease deed. The grievance of the complainant is that the recovery of profit / interest were in contravention of G.O. No.1292/KDA/2000-2001 dated 10.01.2001 issued by the petitioner authority. He, therefore, approached the District Forum seeking refund of the aforesaid amount alongwith compensation amounting to ₹5,00,000/-. 2. The complaint was opposed by the petitioner authority inter-alia on the ground that the charges were taken as per rules. The complaint was also resisted on the ground that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ and the complaint was barred by limitation. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 18.08.2007 directed the petitioner authority to refund of ₹1,25,596.48/-, which it had charged towards profit from the complainant alongwith interest @10% p.a. on that amount. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the authority approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed at the stage of admission itself, the Authority is before us by way of this revision petition. 4. The circular G.O. No.1292/KDA/2000-2001 dated 10.01.2001 on which the claim of the complainant is based reads as under:- “By the Government Order, vide No.5040/11-5-91-80-mis/86, dated 3rd September 1991, it was decided at the Government level, that on the sale of house or plot, of which the possession or registry, whichever is earlier has been done and five years had passed no dividend will be charged. But by the order of the Authority vide No. 1203A/KDA/92-93 dated 23.08.1993 and letter No.1039/KDA/93-94 dated 23.08.1993, the order was circulate that dividend will be charged on sale of spare plots. In reference to the above said Government Order, it is directed that, according to the Government Order no dividend will be charged on the sale of any house or plot if sold after fire years of taking possession or registry, which ever is earlier. Order of the office date 23.08.1993 and 31.10.1992 rectified at that extent.” 5. It would be seen from a perusal of the aforesaid circular that it was only on 03.09.1991 that the Government took a decision not to charge any dividend / profit on the sale of house or plot, of which the possession or registry, whichever be earlier had been done and five years had passed. Admittedly, the house, in question, was purchased by the complainant on 2.08.1989, more than two years before the G.O. dated 03.09.1991 came to be issued by the Government. The benefit of the aforesaid G.O. dated 03.09.1991 obviously would accrue only in respect of those sale of houses or plots which were carried out on or after 03.09.1991. There is no material on record to show that there was any other G.O. applicable on 2.08.1989 and exempting the sale of a house / plot from levy of the profit / dividend. There is nothing in the circular dated 10.01.2001 to indicate that the G.O. issued on 3.09.1991 was retrospective in nature. Therefore, from whatever angle we may see, it cannot be disputed that the benefit of G.O. 5040/11-5-91-80-mis/86, dated 03.09.1991 issued by the Government could not have accrued to the complainant, who had purchased house in question on 02.08.89, more than two years before the aforesaid G.O. came to be issued. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the demand of dividend / profit by the petitioner Authority was fully justified. Consequently, the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. |
