JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The lease hold rights in respect of residential plot no. 99 in Sector-Chi-04, Block-C of Cassia Fistula Estate, Greater Noida were granted by the respondent Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to one Smt. Mansi Moolchandani and a lease deed of the aforesaid plot was duly executed in her favour on 01.06.2007. The aforesaid plot was then purchased by the complainant from Smt. Mansi Moolchandani and the transfer was approved by the OP vide its letter dated 01.12.2014. The OP thereafter, demanded a sum of Rs.14,97,816/- from the complainant towards her share in the additional compensation paid by the OP to the farmers whose land had been acquired in Greater Noida. The aforesaid amount was paid by the complainant but he is aggrieved from the aforesaid payment and his submission is that the aforesaid amount could not have been recovered from him. 2. The other grievances of the complainant is that the lease hold rights in respect of the plot purchased by him from Smt. Mansi Moolchandani have not been converted into free-hold rights though the OP has allowed such conversions in other cases including the land allotted to a company namely Ansals Housing. The complainant is also challenging the transfer charges of Rs.11,42,000/- recovered from him by the OP before allowing the transfer of the plot in his name. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking the following reliefs: “1. That the property purchased by the complainant on 05.12.2014 situated at plot No.99, Sector Chi-4, Block-C, Cassia Fistula Estate, Greater Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 308 should be declared Freehold, that is, the complainant should be granted Freehold rights over the property and the cost of Registration charges an stamp duty already paid for transfer of Lease Deed should be adjusted towards the conversion / purpose. 2. That a sum of Rs.11,42,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and forty two thousand only) realized by the opposite party from the complainant on 21st December, 2014 vide pay order No.642486 drawn on PNB as illegal Transfer Charges should be refunded along with interest @ 15% per annum (see para 13 & 16 of the facts). 3. That the illegal demand of the opposite party for Rs.14,97,816/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs, ninety seven thousand eight hundred and sixteen only) dated 13th April, 2016 vide letter No. Property/PCH01/2013/2972 towards recovery of additional compensation to be paid to the farmers be quashed and declared illegal and the amount of Rs.3,74,454/- (Rupees three lakhs, seventy four thousand four hundred and fifty four only) already paid by the complainant (under protest) on 23.5.2016 vide pay order No. 866609 drawn on PNB be refunded to him along with interest to 15% from the date of payment (as demanded by the opposite party itself for late payment in its above stated demand letter). 4. Losses suffered by the complainant due to illegal demands, abuse of dominant position, unfair and discriminatory trade practices, unscrupulous, exploitation, harassment, mental agony and fall in the market value of the property due to the above acts of exploitation, as explained in the para 26 of the facts, to the tune of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and twenty lakhs only) may be given towards compensation. 5. Discontinue the unfair and restrictive Trade Practises adopted by the opposite party like power to unilaterally change the terms and conditions and various others mentioned in para 9 to 13 of the facts.” 3. The complaint has been resisted by the OP which has admitted the allotment made to Smt. Mansi Moolchandani as well as the transfer of the lease hold rights of the plot in favour of the complainant. It has been stated in the written version that initially, the aforesaid plot was allotted to one Pushpendra Kumar who transferred the same to Smt. Mansi Moolchandani @ Mansi M. Chandok. The lease deed of the plot aws executed in favour of Smt. Mansi Moolchandani. Thereafter, the lease hold rights were transferred in the name of the complainant, on payment of the prescribed transfer charges. 4. As regards the demand on account of extra compensation paid to the farmers, the case of the OP is that the extra compensation was necessitated on account of a decision rendered by Allahabad High Court, in several batches of Writ Petitions challenging the acquisition of land in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. The High Court, instead of quashing the notifications whereby the land was acquired, directed payment of additional compensation to the farmers. The decision of Allahabad High Court was challenged by the farmers as well as by the OP but was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As regards conversion from lease hold rights into free hold rights, it is stated in the written version filed by the OP that they have not allotted any individual plot on free hold basis and the example of Ansals Housing is wholly irrelevant. It is also claimed that allotment of plot on lease hold basis is a policy decision which is not the subject matter of the consumer dispute. 5. Vide its decision dated 21.10.2011, rendered in WP(C) No. 37443 of 2011 Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and connected matters, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad inter-alia directed as under: “3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with the following directions: (a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of same ration (i.e. 64.70%) as paid for village Patwari in addition to the compensation received by them under 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what proportion or additional compensation be asked to be paid by allottees. Those petitioners who have not yet been paid compensation may be paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as ordered above. The payment of additional compensation shall be without any prejuce to rights of land owners under Section 18 of the Act, if any.” (Emphasis supplied) It would thus be seen that while disposing of the writ petitions, the Hon’ble High Court permitted the OP namely Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to decide as to what proportion of the additional compensation would be paid by the allottees. The Authority, in its wisdom, decided to recover the whole of the compensation paid to the farmers, from the allottees. It is not for a Consumer Forum to go into the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid decision. If the complainant is aggrieved from the decision of the Authority to recover the whole of the additional compensation from the allottees, a Consumer Forum is not an appropriate Forum for the redressal of such a grievance. If the Authority, in its wisdom, decides to recover whole of the additional compensation paid to the farmers from the allottees and uniformly recover the same from all the allottees, it cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to its consumers. Therefore, in my opinion, no relief with respect to the payment of additional compensation can be granted to the complainant by a Consumer Forum. 6. As far as conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights is concerned, that being a policy decision, cannot be challenged before a Consumer Forum. Even if the OP has converted lease hold rights of Ansals Housing into free hold rights, that does not ipso facto entitle an individual allottee to obtain the conversion of his lease hold rights into free hold rights. This is not his case that any other individual allottee has been allowed conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights. If an individual allottee is aggrieved on account of the Authority refusing to convert his lease hold rights into free hold rights while allowing such a conversion in Ansals Housing, a Consumer Forum is not an appropriate Forum to challenge such a policy decision of the Authority. The individual allottee aggrieved from such a decision must necessarily agitate his grievance before an appropriate Forum such as in the writ jurisdiction of the concerned High Court or before a Civil Court. 7. As far as the payment of transfer charges is concerned, a perusal of the lease deed would show that the lessee is prohibited from assigning, relinquishing or transferring the plot subject matter of the lease deed without prior permission of the lessor. Clause II(15) and(16) of the lease deed specifically provide that in case of transfer being permitted, transfer charges as fixed by the lessor shall be payable by the lessee to the lessor at the time of transfer. Therefore, the Authority, while granting permission to Smt. Mansi Moolchandani to transfer her lease hold rights in favour of the complainant, was entitled to demand the transfer charges fixed by it for such a transfer. If the allottee was not agreeable to pay the said charges, nothing prevented him from her giving up the proposed transfer and continuing to keep the plot with her. Having obtained the transfer of the lease hold rights of the plot, neither the transferor nor the transferee can challenge the payment of the transfer charges unless it is shown that the charges demanded and recovered by the Authority were discriminatory or in excess of the charges fixed by it for permitting such a transfer. Since this is not the case here, the challenge to the recovery of the transfer charges must necessarily fail. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
