DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.406/06

Sh. Nava Kairali C.G.H. Society Ltd.

Plot No.10, Sector 3, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110045                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority

Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023                           ….Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 27.07.06                         Date of Order    :28.02.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant was allotted a plot vide offer of allotment letter No. F(152)90/GH/DDA dated 03.11.12 in accordance with the terms of the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (in short, the Rules) at the pre-determined rate which was  @ Rs.1650/-.  The case of the complainant is that the land allotted to the complainant society was fully and completely developed land for which the pre-determined rates had been charged. However, the level of the plot so allotted to the complainant was one and a half meter below the road level and the plot was also not uniformly leveled. The possession of the plot was taken under protest and also on the assurance made by the OP that due compensation would be made but to no effect despite several letters written to the various authorities in this regard and that the complainant had to bear an expenditure of Rs.19,93,175/- to bring the plot to the level of the developed plot. According to the Complainant, the OP has not refunded the said amount though the plot was allotted to it in accordance with the pre-determined rates and under the Rules the OP was duty bound to provide the developed plot of land for which it had charged the price. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to refund the amount of Rs. Rs.19,93,175/-alongwith interest and to pay damages to compensate the complainant society.

In the written statement, OP has inter-alia stated that as per the existing policy of the DDA, the commitment of the DDA is only for peripheral development in respect of the CHGS plots allotted and accordingly as per the policy the DDA is not responsible for internal development of the plot which includes earth filling wherever required; that DDA OP had already intimated this fact to the complainant society vide letter dated 11.04.05 issued by the Commissioner (LD) of the OP. It is submitted that as per DDA policy the land was allotted on the basis of “As exist at the site” and the OP is not responsible for internal development or earth filling of the plot. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

In the rejoinder the complainant has inter-alia stated that the OP talks of only existing policy copy of which has not been filed.

Affidavit of Sh. R. K. Panaickar, President of the complainant society has been filed in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. B.S. Jaglan, OSD/RL has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.

It is not out of place to mention here that reliance on number of judgments has been placed on behalf of the Complainant in the rejoinder, affidavit of its witness and the written arguments but, however, copy of no judgment has been provided to us despite specific opportunities given to the complainant in this behalf. Therefore, we shall dispose off the matter without considering the authorities.

The complainant has not filed any document which may even remotely show that the complainant had taken the possession of the plot from the OP under protest.  Copy of one letter dated 03.10.14 written on behalf of the Complainant through its Secretary to the Commissioner (Housing) of the OP has been filed on the record on behalf of the complainant. We mark the copy as Mark ‘CC' for the purposes of proper identification. The said letter inter-alia provides that as per the declared policy of the DDA and the impression given to the complainant in the seminar conducted on Dwarka Project during last year was that the land will be DEVELOPED and LEVELED properly before handing over the physical possession of the plot; that however, in  the case of the complainant this had not been done. Therefore, OP was requested to arrange to level the plot atleast to the road level immediately. Nowhere in the said letter it was stated on behalf of the Complainant that the possession of the plot was taken under protest or that the plot was allotted to the complainant under the rules.

Copy of letter No.F7(152)90/GH/DDA dated 03.11.1992 written by the OP to the complainant society on the subject “Allotment of land under Group Housing Scheme in Dwarka (Papankala) Phase-I” has been filed. Para 2 of this letter inter-alia provides that  “As per the provisions of DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Lands) Rules, 1981 and decision taken by Delhi Development Authority in respect of the earnest money, the premium for the land shall be payable…”. We mark it as Mark ‘CCC’ for the  purposes of proper identification. From a perusal of para 2 of the said letter we are of the considered opinion that the rules applied in respect of earnest money and the premium of the land etc. and did not provide for bringing the plot to the road level in case  the plot was not in  the proper level. Copy of the Rules has not been filed on the record. However, rule 2 (i) and rule 2 (I) have been reproduced in the complaint. However, from these rules we cannot come to the conclusion that in case the level of the plot  allotted to the complainant was below the road level, it was the duty of the OP to bring it to the road level by doing earth filling.

Therefore, without going into the question whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ and the dispute raised in the complaint is a ‘Consumer Dispute’ we hold that the complainant has failed to prove its case.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it 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 28.02.17.