http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

                                                          1

                                                REPORTABL                                                          E

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                CIVIL APPEAL NO.794 OF 2001

    Ghaziabad Development Authority              ...Appellant

    Versus

    Ved Prakash Aggarwal                         ...Respondent

                         J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1.      This appeal at the instance of Ghaziabad

      Development Authority (in short "the GDA")

      is   filed    against    the   judgment   and   order

      dated   3rd   of    August,    2000   passed   by   the

      Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices

      Commission, New Delhi (in short ‘the MRTP

      Commission’) in R.T.P.E. No.82 of 1998 by

      which the MRTP Commission had directed the

      GDA to deliver possession of a plot of 90

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

                                                            2

    sq. mtrs. to the complainant/respondent in

    Govindpuram Scheme or any adjacent scheme

    at a price prevalent in the year 1988.

2.   The dispute in this appeal pertains to the

    allotment of certain land by the GDA in its

    Govindpuram Scheme. In the complaint filed

    before     the      MRTP      Commission          by    the

    respondent, it was alleged that the GDA had

    first    allotted        certain    land    to    him   and

    after many years, cancelled the allotment

    arbitrarily.       The    respondent       also    claimed

    the     refund      of     the      invested       amount.

    Challenging       the    cancellation      of    allotment

    as    arbitrary    and     also    for   refund    of   the

    invested money, a proceeding was initiated

    at the instance of the respondent before

    the     MRTP   Commission          alleging      that   the

    cancellation of the allotment by the GDA

    was not only arbitrary but also indicative

    of its monopolistic hold on the land and

    therefore, it amounted to an unfair trade

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

                                                            3

practice        under     the     MRTP       Act.     The     GDA

entered         appearance         and         denied         the

allegations       made     in    the     complaint,         inter

alia, alleging that no specific allotment

order was made by the GDA and, therefore,

cancellation of the same did not arise at

all. It was further stated by the GDA in

their    written        objection       to    the    complaint

that the long delay was attributable to the

fact     that     the     scheme       was     tied     up       in

litigation       for     many    years       and    when     that

litigation       was     over,    the     draw      prescribed

for allotment of land was held. Since the

respondent       had     failed    in     this      draw,     the

allotment of the land could not be made and

therefore,       the     refund    was       offered.       After

hearing the parties and on the basis of the

available records, the MRTP Commission held

that the land was indeed allotted to the

respondent       and     the     cancellation          of    the

respondent’s allotment when other allottees

had     been    given     the     plots       in    the      same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

                                                                  4

     circumstances amounted to an "unfair trade

     practice" under Section 36 of the MRTP Act.

     The    MRTP     Commission       also     held       that    the

     respondent       had     suffered       pecuniary       losses

     and damages.           Based on these findings, the

     MRTP Commission directed the GDA to allot

     90 sq. mtrs. of plot to the respondent in

     Govindpuram Scheme and in case the plot was

     not available, to hand over the possession

     of    vacant    plot     of    the    same     size    to    the

     respondent       in     other     schemes       nearby       the

     Govindpuram        Scheme        at      the        previously

     decided       price.    Feeling       aggrieved       by    this

     order, the GDA has come up in appeal in

     this Court.

3.    Having    heard       the     learned    counsel       for       the

     parties and after going through the order of

     the    MRTP    Commission       as    well     as    the    other

     available       records,       two    questions        crop       up

     before us for decision of this appeal: -

(i)        Whether    any     unfair       trade     practice          was

          resorted to by the GDA;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

                                                    5

(ii)     Whether     the   MRTP   Commission   had       the

        jurisdiction to direct the GDA to allot an

        alternative plot of land to the respondent

        at the previously fixed price under the

        MRTP Act.

4.     Before we go into these questions, we may,

      at this stage, narrate certain other facts

      also, which would be required for decision

      in this appeal. In October 1988, the GDA had

      floated a housing scheme the particulars of

      which are reproduced as under.

          "Col.3.40 - This scheme relates to        pay    plan   which    says   that the        plots/houses under these schemes are        being constructed under lump sum plan        (code 1), self financing plan (code 2)        and hire purchase plan (code 3).

      Col.3.43 The reservation amount, as        mentioned in column 8 of table 1 is to        be paid within 30 days from the date of        reservation letter.

      Col. 3.66 If payment fixed for such        allotment of land is not made within        three months after its due date along        with   penal  interest,  if  any,   the        allotment shall be treated as cancelled        without notice. The GDA reserves its        right to cancel for non-payment within

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

                                                             6

    the   time  specified          in    column        3.66      without notice.

    Col.8 The allotment will be made by a      manual computerized draw in the presence      of applicants who wish to be present as      per the serial Nos. of the application      forms. Claim for any particular house by      any applicant will not be acceptable.      Dates of lottery for reservation and      allotment shall be published in the      newspaper.     Col.9     speaks    about      unsuccessful applicants.

    Col.9.10 Those applicants, who have not      been   allotted/reserved   plots/houses,      will be returned their registration      amount without interest if the period of      deposit of such money with the GDA is      less than one year.

    Col.9.20 If the period of deposit is      more than one year 5% simple interest      shall be paid for the entire period of      deposit. Co.9.30 For the purpose of      calculation of period of deposit the      month of deposit & refund shall not be      counted. Any period after the date of      start of refund of registration amount      of unsuccessful applicants, shall not be      counted for the purpose of calculation      of ‘period of deposit’."

    Keeping the columns, as noted herein above,

in   mind,   let   us     now   proceed    with    the     other

subsequent relevant documents. A letter dated 10th

of   February,     1989    issued   by    the     GDA    to       the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

                                                   7

respondent is one of the important documents that

needs to be considered by us in disposing of this

appeal. This letter indicates reservation of Plot

E in Govindpuram Scheme and the estimated cost is

shown as Rs.55, 800/-. The payment schedule as

appearing from the same is as under: -

       The due date for payment is 10th of March,

1989 and the amount due indicated in the said

letter is Rs.50, 000/-.

      The conditions for taking account for non-

payment is shown in the following manner -

(i) The grace period of one month shall be given

for payment of the above amount after the due

date.

(ii) If the amounts payable to the GDA are not

paid    within   the   prescribed   time   limit,   penal

interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall be

payable along with the payable amounts. If the

payment is not made within three months after its

due date along with penal interest, if any, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

                                                                      8

      allotment     shall     be     treated      cancelled      without

      notice.

           The    reservation        of    Plot   E    in   Govindpuram

      Scheme so far as the respondent was concerned was

      subject     to    rules      and     regulations      in    force,

      prescribed from time to time by the GDA or the

      State     Government.     It       was   also    stated    in       the

      letter     that     the       terms      and     conditions          as

      stipulated in the brochure of above scheme hold

      good and the allocation was subjected to those

      conditions. Draw for specific plot number was to

      be held separately.

      5.   Having considered the relevant materials, as

           noted hereinabove, let us now look at the

           findings     of    the    MRTP      Commission     based        on

           which it has passed the impugned order. The

           findings are as under: -

1.     By a reservation letter dated 10.2.1989, the GDA

    intimated           the          complainant             regarding

    reservation/allocation of a plot in Plot E category

    in Govindpuram Plots           Scheme in         the name    of the

    complainant and was allotted/reserved allottee code

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

                                                                          9

 no. 539 700 0070 for an approximate area of 90 sq.

 metres.

2.The complainant deposited Rs. 45000/- vide demand

 draft dated 10.4.1989 with the GDA within grace

 period    and    the      balance      Rs.     5000       was   paid     vide

 demand draft dated 7.1.1990 with 18 %penal interest

 amounting       to        Rs.    750/-        and     therefore,             the

 complainant       had      deposited       a       total    sum    of        Rs.

 58000/- by the end of January, 1990.

3.The order of         the Allahabad             High Court         in Satya

 Prakash Vs. State of UP dated 24.4.1991 nowhere

 mentioned that the area of the Govindpuran scheme

 had been reduced and therefore the reason given by

 the GDA was not supported by this order of the

 Allahabad High Court.

   6. We have          examined the            findings of         the MRTP

   Commission         in    the     light      of    the    materials          on

   record.       Having      done      that,    it    is    difficult          to

   conceive that the respondent was unsuccessful in

   the draw of lots as alleged by the GDA, which is

   the    excuse      given       by   them     for    not       giving       the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

                                                                   10

possession of the plot to the respondent.                           It is

an admitted fact that the GDA had already issued

a reservation/allocation letter to the respondent

and it is also a finding of the MRTP Commission

that the respondent had paid the full amount of

Rs.58000/-.       This shows that the respondent was

successful in the draw of lots because otherwise,

where   was     the    need    for    the    GDA       to    issue       the

reservation/allocation letter to the respondent

which also required him to make the necessary

payments. In this view of the matter, we affirm

the finding of the MRTP Commission that the act

of the GDA amounted to an unfair trade practice.

7.Having      decided     issue        no.1       in        the    manner

 indicated      above,       the    other       question         that    we

 need to decide is whether the MRTP Commission

 had   the     jurisdiction         to     direct      the       GDA     to

 handover possession of a vacant plot of 90 sq.

 mtrs.    to    the    respondent          in    the       Govindpuram

 scheme or if not available, an alternative plot

 in some other scheme. So far as this question

 is concerned, we hold that the MRTP Commission

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

                                                              11

 was clearly in error in directing the GDA to

 handover possession to the respondent. Under

 the   Act,     there     are   provisions       for   inquiries

 that can be instituted by the MRTP Commission

 while Section 36D read with Section 12A and 12B

 lay down the powers of the MRTP Commission in

 dealing        with     instances       of    Unfair         trade

 practices.       None     of    the    provisions      seem        to

 indicate       that     the    MRTP    Commission      has        the

 authority to do what it did in this case. The

 MRTP Commission has the power to impose damages

 or give compensation to the respondent as a

 mode of redressal for harm caused by the unfair

 trade practices, but it certainly cannot assume

 the   powers     of     the    civil    court    because          the

 action    of    the     MRTP   commission       in    this    case

 virtually       amounts        to     grant     of     specific

 performance.

8.In this view of the matter and in view of the

 foregoing reasons, we consider it appropriate

 to remand this appeal to the MRTP Commission

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

                                                                       12

   for decision afresh on the compensation, which

   may be given to the respondent in accordance

   with     law   along   with   refund       of        the         amount

   deposited by the respondent with the GDA with

   simple interest. The appeal is thus allowed to

   the extent indicated above. No costs.

                                       ..........................................J.                                         [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

                                      ........................................J.                                       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] New Delhi.

May 14,2008.