Heard learned counsel for the complainants and Mr. Abhi Garg, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Nikhil Jain, learned counsel for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. The following reliefs have been prayed for in this amended complaint which was allowed by this Commission:  

“a)      Allow the complainants to represent the interest of all other affected allottees/leaseholders to whom residential plots are allotted by OP-GREATER NOIDA INUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY under S.12(1)(c) read with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC;

b)       Allow any aggrieved allottee of residential plots, allotted by OP-GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, to join the present complainants for redressal of their disputes in light of the present complaint;

c)       Hold the Opposite Party guilty of Unfair Trade Practices;

d)       Declare the Opposite Party’s decision to demand Rs.1465 per sqmtr from its allottees/lease holders over and above the lease consideration under the guise of Pratikar/Farmers compensation as illegal, unauthorized, contrary to the lease agreement and amounts to an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act;

e)       Set aside the demand notices already raised by the OP demand Rs. 1465 per sqmtr from its allottees/lease holders as illegal, unauthorized, contrary to the lease agreement and amounts to an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act;

f)       Restrain the Opposite Party/GNIDA from issuing any further demand notices towards Farmers Compensation or otherwise from its consumers over and above the amounts agreed in the lease agreement;

g)       Direct the Opposite Party to pay compensatory damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to each Complainant;

h)       Direct the Opposite Party to pay the Cost of litigation;

i)        Such other relief that this Hon’ble Commission may deem appropriate in the interest of justice.”

At the outset, learned counsel for the complainants stated that there are instructions to withdraw the complaint on behalf of complainants no.1, 2 and 16.

In respect of the other complainants, learned counsel has very fairly invited the attention of the Bench to the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Etc. Vs. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society & Ors., decided on 19.05.2022, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 655.

As is evident from the relief clause extracted hereinabove, the present complaint is about the alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in seeking to raise an additional demand of Rs.1465/- per sq. metre for payment of Farmers Compensation from the allottees/lease holders.

The said demand as is evident from record has been raised on account of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court regarding payment of additional and enhanced compensation to the farmers who were the original owners of the land.  This additional demand is therefore on account of a judicial intervention and such a similar nature of demand in respect of the same authority has been found to be valid and upheld by the Apex Court in the judgment cited hereinabove.

Consequently, the legal issue stands foreclosed and the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is clearly binding on the facts that arise in the present case which are similar in nature.  The complainants cannot succeed insofar as the additional demand by the authority is concerned.  No other issue is raised or survives.

The complaint is accordingly consigned to record.