CC/1788/2000

No. DF/ Central/

SAROJ SINGHAL W/O SH. H. C. SINGHAL 390, NIMRI COLONY,

DELHI -110052

 ... COMPLAINANT

 V/S

THE CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS (P) LTD, PATAUDI HOUSE, DARYA GANJ NEWDELHI-110006

... OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum: Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

            Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member

Manju Bala Sharma , Member

                                    ORDER                     Dated: 

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi passed an order dated 6-12-2008 in FA No. 08/1020 anddirected that “District Forum shall decide the matter afresh on merit hence we are deciding this matter afresh”.

2. It has been alleged by the complainant that he had purchased a plot of measuring 200 sq. yds @ Rs 50/- per sq. yds. in Kailash Nagar, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi from OP  through Rattan Property Dealer, Radhu Cinema, G.T. Road, Shahdara , Delhi-110032 and final payment of Rs 10,000/- was made vide receipt no. K. N. 118 dt. 03.01.1975.The construction cost has increased tremendously during all these years and the possession of the plot has not been given by the OP inspite of several reminders and personal requests. It has been prayed that the OP may  be directed to execute the sale deed and handover the possession of the plot, to pay the higher construction cost due to  non –transferring of plot and that the OP may be directed to complete the development of the work of the colony.

3. In reply OP objected the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of limitation as the complaint is filed after 22 years.  OP admitted that a plot was purchased by the complainant but it could not be transferred being encumbered with one or other legal hurdles and denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint.

4.In support of complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents.   In support of reply Op filed affidavit of Ankur Sachdeva .   Both the parties filed their written arguments.

5.We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

           (a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

            (b) Whether the complaint is time barred.

(c) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?

( d) Relief?

6.   It is admitted that OP has sold the plot to the complainant and total consideration of the sale was paid by the complainant to the OP.  Therefore, complainant is a consumer.

7. It is true that the complainant filed  this complaint in the year 1997 while OP  has sold the disputed plot in the year 1975 . In reply OP has admitted that the plot could not be transferred being encumbered with one or other legal hurdles.In these special circumstances, the above delay is immaterial and the claim is not time barred.

8.   Sale letter no. K N 118 dated 03.01.1975 clearly shows an endorsement to the effect that “ the said plot is notified under land Acquistion act 1894”. During Argument it was argued by the learned counsel of the complainant that the purchased  plot was denotified in 2014. But there is no document on the file which clarify that the plot sold to the complainant was denotified by the government. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 10.11.2014 in W.P.(c ) 4769/2014 and CM 9510/2014 allowed the writ of the OP but it is not sufficient to presume that the plot purchased by the complainant is covered in this judgment. 

9. Any sale of plot in the notified area with the hope that it would be denotified in future cannot be equated with the void agreement under the law.  Admittedly, OP has not delivered the possession of the plot  to the complainant till the date of filing of the complaint due to the unclear  title of the property itself is sufficient to prove deficiency on the part of OP.

10. Looking to the above facts and circumstances we direct OP as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- received from the complainant on 03.1.1975 along with an interest of Rs 24% p.a.  up to the date of payment.

2. To pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

3. To pay  Rs.20,000/-  as cost of long litigation between the parties.

11. The above order shall be complied within two months from the date of order failing which an additional interest  @ 10% p.a. will be payable on compensation and cost of litigation till the date of payment and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this ……………..