2009(6) SCR 434

ESTATE MANAGER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD v.

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA (Civil Appeal No.2599 of 2009)

APRIL 16, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the National Consumer  

Disputes  Redressal  Commission  (  in  short  the  'National  Commission').  By  the  

impugned order the National Commission set aside the order passed by the Madhya  

Pradesh  State  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission  (in  short  the  'State  

Commission')  The respondents had filed complaints before the District  Consumer  

Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (in short the 'District Forum') making a grievance  

that the present appellant Board cannot charge 10% extra charge for a corner plot  

and  5% extra  charge  for  best  location  plot.  According  to  the  complainant  these  

amounts are not payable as the appellant Board had accepted the amounts payable  

without such charges. The District Forum accepted the complaints and directed that  

the charges levied and demanded cannot be collected. Questioning the correctness  

of the orders passed by the District Forum the State Commission was moved by way  

of appeal by the present appellant. The appeal was allowed. It was specifically noted  

that the District Forum had not kept in view the fact that there is a provision in the

manual issued by the Board in the year 1978 about such levy. The State Forum also  

referred to various documents like the Board's advertisement relating to registration  

for Higher Income Group Houses, Indore. The order of District Forum was set aside  

by the State Forum. Questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the State  

Commission revision petitions were filed before the National Commission which was  

allowed by the impugned order.  

4.  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  Board  submitted  that  the  National  

Commission did not take note of various relevant documents like the advertisement  

relating to registration for Higher Income Group Houses, letter of allotment and the  

terms and conditions of registration and allotment. It was also pointed out that in the  

allotment letter the demand was made specifically for 10% for corner plot charges  

and 5% for best location plots. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  

submitted that the District Forum and National Commission took note of the fact that  

since the house was allotted after draw of lots in the lottery, there is no question of  

the Board making a demand in the manner done.

5. Various documents referred to by learned counsel for the appellant Board  

leaves no manner of doubt that the demand was authorised in terms and conditions  

of registration of allotment which has been specifically indicated as follows:

As per the prevailing Rules of the Board, on house situated in the corner a  

price of 10% and house situated on the main road a separate price of 5% shall  

have to be given. In addition to the average land of the house the price of more  

land shall  be taken separately which will  be informed as per the actual  map  

certificate at the time of allotment of the house. As per rules these rate and  

other charges shall be payable separately.

6. The National Commission was of the view that because by sheer chance of  

luck  the draw of  plot  in  the lottery  the plot  was allotted  the principle  relating to  

charging  the  additional  amounts  for  the  best  location  or  corner  plot  cannot  be  

applicable. This conclusion is contrary to the advertisement made for registration of  

the house.  It  has been specifically  mentioned therein  that  the registration of  the  

house shall be determined by the lottery and the terms and conditions of registration  

and allotment specifically provided for additional charges. That being so, the view  

taken by the National Commission cannot be sustained and is set aside. In other  

words, the order passed by the State Commission is maintained while those of the  

District Forum and the National Commission get nullified.

The appeal is allowed.

SLP(C) No. 2557/2005, 2625/2005, 2702/2005, 2775/2005, 2785/2005:

Leave granted.

In  view  of  the  order  passed  in  Civil  Appeal  No......./2009  @  SLP(C)  No.  

20606/2004  these  appeals  deserve  to  be  allowed.  The  impugned  order  of  the  

National Commission so far as it relates to nullification of charges for the corner plot  

and the best location plots in each case is set aside. Additionally, on the facts of the  

case the direction for levy of interest cannot be maintained and the interest directed  

to be paid stand set aside.

The appeals are allowed.