Above: NCRDC/Photo by Anil Shakya
Twenty seven allottees of residential plots assigned by the “Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Residential Plot Scheme 2009 (1)” – the opposing party (OP) – have yet to get their plots despite having paid the required amount and despite the requisite time having elapsed. The allottees, led by Sunny Singhal, have approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
On Monday (January 29) the complainants themselves sought an adjournment, with NCDRC’s Justice A Bharihoke, assigning February 23 as the next date of hearing, but the overall issue in litigation is interesting to the extent that the authorities, a government concern, had issued allotment certificates despite not having formally acquiring the plots they had been selling.
The plots were pre-launched by the OP with the complainants having got their allotment by way of transfer from previous allottees in the year 2010. There were two payment plans known as “Payment Plan-I” and “Payment Plan -2”. As per payment Plan No. 1, allottees were under obligation to pay 50 percent of the total premium upfront and the remainder in 16 half yearly instalments along with 12 percent interest. As per Payment Plan No. 2, allottees were to pay 30 percent of the total premium upfront and the remainder in 16 half-yearly instalments along with 12 percent interest.
Complainant No. 1 opted for payment plan No. 1, while the others had opted for payment Plan No. 2. According to the scheme, the allottees were to get the possession upon payment of 75 percent of the premium or after four years from the date of issue of this letter, whichever is later.
Other charges were to be paid at the time of execution of lease deed by the allottees. The instalments in terms of the above mentioned payment plans also included a sum of Rs 1,000 as “one time web based portal charges” which was also paid. The land was to be acquired from the farmers. The farmers filed a number of writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court. A list of the said writ petitions has been placed on the record.
The action of acquisition is still pending. In December 2013, the OP provided the status of stay of the land to the allottees. The total plots in the above said scheme are approximately 21,000. Out of which, stay operates on approximately 12,000 plots. Although, the OP does not have the possession of the plot, yet, it is still raising the demand for payment of instalments of the payment plans.
The allottees have made 75 percent payment of the base premium amount and four years have already elapsed since the allotment of the aforesaid plots and yet the OP is not in a position to allot plot to its respective allottees.
Since the OP has not paid the costs, therefore, the defence of the OP will not be considered. It also appears that the permission U/s 12 (i) (c) was not taken.
Consequently, the requirements of Section 12 (i) (c) and 13 (vi) and Order 1, Rule 8 stands complied with. Consequently, the permission to pursue the case is hereby granted.
There is no inkling that they have obtained the allotment for selling it. Consequently, it is safely assumed that they are consumers in their individual capacity, separately.
The above said documents and the affidavit of the complainant proves the case of the complainants. The OP is guilty of unfair trade practice; it should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land. It is common knowledge that after contesting the case before the District/Additional District Judge, the farmers always go to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court. It is not understandable why the government agency has made an attempt to lead the gullible people up the garden path.
It was held by the Commission that The OP shall not take the interest for remainder payments towards allotment to allottees, except for four years till the complainants are put in possession of plots. The OP is debarred from sending the defaulter notices or forcing the allottees to execute lease deed without having possession of the land. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances, there will be no order as to compensation or costs.
—India Legal Bureau