IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7030 OF 2002

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

SUBHASH CHANDRA SOOD .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Ghaziabad  Development  Authority,  the  appellant  

herein  ('the  Authority',  for  short)  floated  a  housing  

scheme in Govindpuram.  In the year 1989, the respondent  

applied for a 200 sq. mt. plot.  The Authority issued a  

reservation letter.  There were some delay in payment of  

some  instalments.   According  to  the  respondent,  all  

instalments have been paid with interest.

2. The respondent filed a complaint before the District  

Forum in the year 1993 seeking (i) delivery of the plot,  

(ii) award of interest at 18% per annum on the deposited  

amount,  and  (iii)  compensation  for  the  delay.   The  

Authority resisted the petition contending that in view of  

a stay order issued by the High Court in writ petitions  

filed by the land owners, the Authority could not deliver  

the plot.  The District Forum, by order dated 31.7.1997,  

directed delivery of possession of plot within three months  

and also awarded interest at 18%  per  annum on the amount

......2.

- 2 -

deposited.  The appeal filed by the Authority was dismissed  

by the State Commission on 10.3.2000.  The revision filed  

by  the  appellant  was  dismissed  by  a  non-speaking  order  

dated  14.3.2002  which  is  impugned  in  this  appeal.   The  

order merely states that in view of the decision in Haryana  

Urban  Development  Authority Vs.  Darsh  Kumar (Revision  

Petition No. 1197 of 1998), where the Commission had upheld  

the interest at 18% per annum, the revision petition was  

being  dismissed.  The  various  contentions  urged  by  the  

appellant  were  not  considered.   In  particular,  the  

contention that the plot could not be delivered for reasons  

beyond  its  control  and  that  there  was  no  deficiency  in  

service and the further contention that where delivery of  

plot is directed, payment of interest at 18% per annum was  

not warranted.  As the order is a non-speaking order which  

does not deal with the issues raised, in the normal course,  

we would have set aside the order and remitted the matter  

to the National Commission.

3. But  at  this  stage,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent, however, stated that that would involve further  

delay and the respondent who has been waiting for the plot  

ever since 1989, should not  be  denied the benefit of the  

plot any further. He requested that the matter may be heard

and disposed of finally by this Court.  In  the   special  

.......3.

- 3 -

circumstances, we propose to consider the matter on merits.  

4. However,  at  this  stage,  learned  counsel  for  the  

Authority  submitted  that  an  alternative  Plot  No.E-3  in  

Swarn Jayanti Puram Scheme is allotted to the respondent on  

21.6.2000,  but  respondent  did  not  respond.   She  also  

submitted that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of  

this  case,  the  plot  will  even  now  be  offered  to  the  

respondent.   She  stated  that  instead  of  charging  the  

present  allotment  rate  of  Rs.7800/-  per  sq.  mt.  the  

Authority will make the allotment at Rs.2300/- per sq.mt.  

which was the rate prevailing in 2000-2001 when the said  

Scheme was launched.  We are of the view that the offer  

made is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The delay  

in offering the possession of the plot earlier in 1989 was  

for reasons beyond the control of the Authority in view of  

the stay order which was operating against the Authority.  

The  plot  that  is  now  allotted  is  in  a  new  layout.  The  

Authority has to charge only the initial allotment rate of  

that new layout.

5. In  the  circumstances,  we  allow  this  appeal,  set  

aside the order of the National Commission and modify the  

order of the State Commission by  directing  the  appellant  

........4.

- 4 -

Authority to allot the plot No.E-3, measuring 200 sq. mts.,  

in the Swarn Jayanti Puram Scheme at the rate of Rs.2300/-  

per  sq.  mts.  and  deliver  the  same  within  three  months  

against payment of balance amount due.  The respondent will  

be entitled to adjustment of the amounts already paid by  

him  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  9%  per  annum  thereon  

towards the price of the plot. It is  needless  to  say  

that   in   the  circumstances  the  question  of  Authority  

paying interest on the price deposited at the rate of 18%  

per annum does not arise.  

  .........................J.       ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    .........................J. November 19, 2009.              ( K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8516 OF 2002

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

MEERA SANGER .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Ghaziabad  Development  Authority,  the  appellant  

herein  ('the  Authority',  for  short)  launched  a  housing  

scheme  at  Sanjay  Nagar.  On  the  application  of  the  

respondent, the Authority issued a reservation letter on  

30.6.1992. Allotment letter was issued on 5.11.1993 showing  

the  final  cost  of  the  plot  as  Rs.1,08,339/-.   The  

respondent did not pay the lumpsum amount payable before  

delivery  of  possession  and  as  on  24.4.1996,  the  total  

amount due was Rs.33,716/- towards the plot, Rs.13,000/-  

towards chowkidar charges and Rs.18,713/- towards interest.  

As  the  payment  was  not  made,  the  plot  could  not  be  

delivered.   

2. However, the respondent filed a complaint before the  

District  Forum  in  the  year  1998  and  the  District  Forum  

directed the appellant  to deliver possession of the plot  

within two months and to pay  interest at 18% per annum on  

the   amount   deposited  from  1.1.1993 till  the  date of

.....2.

- 2 -

possession, and also pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation with a  

further  direction,  on  failure  to  comply,  the  Authority  

should pay interest at 21% per annum.  The District Forum  

also stated that if any amount was due by the allottee, the  

Authority can adjust the same from the interest payable to  

the allottee.  Even though, the appellant was aggrieved by  

the  said  order,  in  compliance  of  the  said   order  it  

executed  the  sale  deed  in  favour  of  the  allottee  on  

29.5.1999 with a condition that the balance amount should  

be paid by the allottee.  The possession of the flat was  

delivered on 16.7.1999.

3. The appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of by  

the  State  Commission  by  merely  reducing  the  default  

interest rate from 21% to 18% per annum by order dated  

5.3.2001. The revision filed by the appellant was disposed  

of by National Commission by a non-speaking order dated  

24.3.2002 disposing of the petition in the light of its  

decision in Darsh Kumar upholding the interest rate at 18%  

per annum.  Various contentions urged by the appellant were  

not considered by the National Commission.

4. In this case, the non delivery was on account of non  

payment of the amount to be  deposited  before delivery of

...3.

- 3 -

possession. It is not in dispute that the possession of the  

flat  has  now  been  delivered  and  sale  deed  also  been  

executed, even when dues had not been paid.   

5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the  

respondent was not entitled to any interest or damages.  

[See  Bangalore  Development  Authority Vs.  Syndicate  Bank,  

(2007) 6 SCC 711 and  HUDA Vs. Raja Ram,  (2009) 2 SCALE  

164].

6. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part and set  

aside the order of the District Forum, as affirmed by the  

State  Commission and the National Commission and delete  

the  award  of  interest  and  award  of  compensation  of  

Rs.2,000/-.  If any amount is still outstanding from the  

respondent, it is open to the Authority to take such action  

as is available to them in accordance with law for recovery  

of the same.

  .........................J.       ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    .........................J. November 19, 2009.              ( K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6050 OF 2002

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

K.K. SHARMA ......RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Ghaziabad  Development  Authority,  the  appellant  

herein  ('the  Authority',  for  short)  floated  a  housing  

scheme in Govindpuram named 'Akansha II'.  The Authority  

issued a reservation letter on 26.2.1989 to the respondent.  

The  respondent  deposited  Rs.21,510/-  as  registration  

amount.  On 29.12.1993, respondent demanded refund on the  

ground that the house allotted was not worth living.  The  

Authority refunded the registration amount deposited by the  

respondent on 20.5.1994 after deducting Rs.5,000/- towards  

cancellation charges.  It did not pay any interest. On a  

complaint filed by the respondent, the District Forum, by  

order  dated  9.9.1997,  directed  refund  of  the  deducted  

amount of Rs.5,000/- and also directed payment of interest  

on the deposited amount at 18% per annum from the date of  

deposit till 20.5.1994 alongwith Rs.2,000/- as costs.  The  

appellant filed an appeal before the State Commission in  

October 1997.  However, as there was no stay, in compliance  

of the District Forum order, the Authority deposited a  sum

......2.

- 2 -

of  Rs.5,000/-  as  also  Rs.79,499/-  towards  interest.  

Thereafter,  the  State  Commission  affirmed  the  order  

upholding the interest at 18% per annum.  Revision filed by  

the appellant has been dismissed by a non-speaking order  

following its earlier decision in Darsh Kumar.

2. The order of the National Commission in Darsh Kumar  

has been modified by this Court in  HUDA Vs.  Darsh Kumar,  

(2005) 9 SCC 449. In several other decisions, this court  

has reduced the interest payable to 9% to 10% per annum. On  

the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that award  

of interest at 18% was not warranted and interest at 10%  

per annum would be just and reasonable.

3. We,  accordingly,  allow  this  appeal  in  part  and  

reduce the interest from 18% to 10% per annum. In all other  

respects,  the  order  of  the  District  Forum  is  affirmed.  

Consequently, the Authority shall be entitled to recover  

back the excess interest paid to the respondent.

  .........................J.       ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    .........................J. November 19, 2009.              ( K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN )