DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 213/2015

Darshan Gupta,

W/o Shri Krishan Chand Gupta,

R/o MP-87, Pitampura,

Delhi-110034                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority,

Through Vice Chairman,

Vikas Sadan, I.N.A . New Delhi.                                ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 05.08.2015               Date of Order                : 22.10.2019

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. Brief facts as pleaded by the complainant are that :-
   1. The complainant, Ms. Darshan Gupta, purchased a property through GPA and Agreement to Sell on 20.04.1988 from Sh. P. K. Mehta.
   2. It is averred that the plot measuring 84 sq. meters at 87 NP Block, Pitampura, Delhi was allotted to Sh. P. K. Mehta on 24.01.1977 by Delhi Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as OP. It is averred that on receiving the sanction on building plan the house was constructed and was completed in all respects in July 1982. Thereafter the ‘C’ From was approved on 03.07.1982 for inspection and D Form was also submitted to the OP by the owner. It is next averred that after completion of the building Sh. P. K. Mehta applied for permanent electricity connection which was sanctioned on 14.11.1982. The house tax in the property was levied w.e.f. 1982 and in this regard bill for payment of house tax of Rs.3547/- was also issued by the Corporation. The owner paid Rs.565/- and Rs.11/- towards water connection charges and road cutting charges. The facts mentioned above confirm that the construction of the building was done in the year 1982.
   3. It is further averred that in May 1987 the owner of the property decided to construct a Barsati Floor in the building hence on 10.05.87 the building plan with respect to Barsati Floor was applied and approved as mentioned in the sanctioned plan.  The Form ‘C’ was submitted on 22.04.82 to inspect the premises to cover up the drainage work on any date which shows that the building was complete but the officer of the OP failed to inspect the premises in time which amounts to deficiency in service.
   4.  It is on 20.04.1988 the complainant Ms. Darshan Gupta purchased the constructed house No.NP-87, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. On 16.07.2014 the complainant applied for conversion of property mentioned above from leasehold to freehold and completed all the formalities regarding the same but the conversion of the property was not done by OP.
   5. It is next averred that the complainant  received a letter dated 11.08.2014 from OP wherein the complainant was asked to deposit composition fee amounting to Rs.72,345/- for the period 01.01.1982 to 26.05.1988, Rs.3/- towards balance conversion charges and Rs.141/- towards balance interest and to submit its third original copy of bank challan to the office of OP. The complainant objected to the arbitrary and illegal charges by writing letters and personally visiting the OP but no heed was paid to his requests. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, the complainant approached this Forum with the prayer to declare the demand of Rs.72,345/- as composition fee to be illegal and unjustified. It is further prayed that OP be directed to convert the property from leasehold to freehold without insisting upon the payment of Rs.72,345/- as composition charges and for direction to OP to pay the litigation cost.
2. OP resisted the complaint inter-alia raising preliminary objections that the complaint is time barred and the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (d) and 2(o) of the Consumer Projection Act, 1986.
   1. OP submits that the above mentioned plot was allotted to Sh. P. K. Mehta vide letter dated 14.02.1976 on payment of premium and the possession of the plot was handed over to him on 15.09.1976, the lease deed was executed on 24.01.1977. It is next submitted that Sh. P. K. Mehta had requested to grant extension of time for construction of the plot and vide letter dated 03.04.1982 had again requested to grant further extension of time to construct the house on the plot. In the year 1982 he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.84/- on account of composition fee vide letter dated 16.04.1982 but he had not deposited the same at the relevant period.
   2. It is further submitted that on 16.07.2014 a conversion application was received from the complainant, GPA holder of the plot, for conversion of property from leasehold to freehold. The complainant furnished a copy of building plan sanctioned letter dated 11.05.1987, copy of Form D dated 26.05.1988 alongwith other documents of conversion.  OP submits that as per the policy of DDA, composition fee for non construction of plot is charged upto the date of issue of Form D. In the present case Form D was issued on 26.05.1988, thus composition fee for the period from 01.01.1982 to 26.05.1988 was worked out to be Rs.72345/-. This amount was demanded vide letter dated 11.08.2014, a reminder was issued on 11.09.2014 and final reminder was issued to the complainant on 09.12.2014. 
   3. As the complainant failed to deposit Rs.3/- towards balance conversion charges, Rs.141/- towards balance interest and composition fee amounting to Rs.72,345/-, the conversion application was rejected by OP and was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 09.02.2015.
   4. OP submits that as Sh. P. K. Mehta had applied for extension, the plot was not constructed up till 03.04.1982. However, it is submitted that as per copy of  the building plan sanctioned letter dated 11.05.1987 submitted by the complainant alongwith the conversion application, the building plan was sanctioned on 07.05.1987 and Form ‘D’ was sanctioned on 26.05.1988. It is next submitted that Form D cannot be issued before sanction of the building plan. Hence, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint as the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency of service by OP.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit. Evidence by way of affidavit of Assistant Director Sh. Laxmi Narayan is filed on behalf of OP.
4. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties.
5. Submissions made by the Ld. Counsel of the OP are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
6. To deal with the preliminary objection raised by the OP it is observed that the complaint is not barred by limitation as the complaint is filed in the year 2015 and the dispute arose in 2014 when OP sent a letter to the complainant to pay the composition fee and other charges to get the conversion done from leasehold to freehold. Therefore, it is very well within the limitation.  The second preliminary objection is also devoid of merit as the complainant is the ‘user of goods’ therefore, he is a ‘Consumer’ as defined in Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7. Now on the merits of the case. The main issue to be decided in this dispute is whether OP is legally right to charge the composition fee of Rs.72,345/- or not?
8. Admittedly the complainant, a GPA Holder purchased a plot from Sh. P. K. Mehta and applied for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold in favour of the purchaser vide application dated 16.07.2014. As per the policy of DDA (OP), composition fee for non-construction of the plot is charged upto the date of issue of Form D and Form D cannot be issued before the sanction of the building plan. The building plan was sanctioned on 22.04.1982 as shown in the Sanctioned Plan annexed as Annexure C-1 with the evidence of the complainant. Form C was submitted and approved by the Secretary of OP on 03.07.1982 which we mark it as Mark A for the sake of identification. It is however noticed that a Barsati Floor was constructed in the year 1987 and the Barsati Floor plan was got approved on 07.05.1987. Form D got the final approval of OP on 26.05.1988 which we mark it as Mark B for the sake of identification. Therefore as the building was not complete in the year 1982 Form D was not sanctioned and approved by OP.
9. As per the policy of OP, composition fee for non-construction of the plot is charged upto the date of issue of Form D which was submitted only in the year 1988. Hence, we are of considered view that OP is well within its rights to charge the composition fee for the period from 01.01.1982 to 26.05.1988 which is worked out to be Rs.72,345/-.
10. Adhering to the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs) and Another (2003) 7 SCC 301 wherein it was held that DDA is a creature of statute and therefore the policy decision or guidelines formulated by DDA have a binding effect on its transferees of land and their assignees in the absence of rules to the contrary.
11. Thus as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that OP being a Statutory Authority, Complainant is bound by the policy decision of OP. In the light of the discussions above we are of the opinion that OP has rightfully demanded Rs.72,345/- towards composition fee and other charge of Rs.3/- balance towards conversion charges and Rs.141/- towards balance interest. The complainant after paying the same can get the property converted from leasehold to freehold. Thus in view of the above, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.  

Announced on 22.10.2019