REPORTABL E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1758-1759 OF 2002

Manjul Srivastava                                       … Appellant      

VERSUS  

Govt. of U.P. & Ors.                               …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J

1. These  two  appeals  at  the  instance  of  Mrs.

Manjul Srivastava (appellant herein) have been filed

against the orders dated 9th of May, 2001 and 7th of

December,  2001  passed  by  the  Monopolies  and

Restrictive  Trade  Practices  Commission,  New Delhi

(in short “the Commission”) in C.A. No. 154 of 1998

and R.A. No. 37 of 2001, which also arose out of C.A.

1

No. 154 of 1998, whereby the Commission had held

that the Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short

“the  GDA”)  had  not  resorted  to  any  “unfair  trade

practice”  inasmuch  as  the  appellant  was

unsuccessful in the draw for allotment of a plot in

Govindpuram area of District Ghaziabad in the State

of  Uttar  Pradesh  and,  therefore,  she  could  not  be

termed as an “allottee” of the residential plot in that

area.   

2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals,

as emerged from the complaint filed by the appellant

before  the  Commission,  may  be  narrated  in  a

nutshell as under:-

The  dispute  in  these  appeals  pertains  to

allotment of a certain plot of land by the GDA in its

Govindpuram Housing Scheme of the year 1988.  The

appellant applied for allotment of a residential  plot

pursuant  to  an  advertisement  of  the  GDA  after

depositing  registration  fees  for  an  amount  of  Rs.

7210/- on 10th of February, 1989.  The GDA issued a

Reservation  Letter  to  the  appellant  reserving  plot

Category – D in her name and further requiring her

2

to deposit the entire balance amount of Rs. 62,240/-

towards  the  estimated  cost.   In  the  Reservation

Letter, it was stipulated that if the payment was not

made within three months after it was due along with

penal interest, if any, the allotment would be treated

as cancelled without notice.  It was further stipulated

that  the  possession  of  the  plot  would  be  given

in 1991 and that the draw for specific plot number

would be held separately.  On 5th of April, 1989, the

appellant  deposited  the  entire  balance  amount  of

Rs. 62,240/- with the GDA but she was not put in

possession of any plot whatsoever.   

3. After  the  lapse  of  almost  nine  years,  more

particularly  on  1st of  October,  1997,  the  appellant

received a Registered Letter from the GDA informing

her  that  she  had  not  been  allotted  a  plot  in  the

Scheme and that the amount deposited by her with

the  GDA  would  be  refunded  with  5%  interest.

However, no reason for not giving possession of the

plot, already reserved in the name of the appellant,

was given.   

3

4. Feeling aggrieved by this action on the part of

the GDA of not allotting a plot in her name, although

the entire  amount was deposited  by the  appellant,

the  appellant  filed  an  application  before  the

Commission,  which  came  to  be  registered  as  C.A.

No. 154 of 1998 alleging that the cancellation of the

allotment by the GDA was not only arbitrary but also

unfair and illegal, therefore,  it amounted to “unfair

trade  practice”  under  the  Act.   Accordingly,  the

appellant sought for a direction to the respondent to

allot another plot to her or in the alternative, to pay

with  interest  at  the  rate    of  20%  on  the  entire

amount for the entire period and also for a direction

to  pay  compensation  to  her.   On  23rd of

February, 2000, the GDA filed its reply to the above

application  contending  inter  alia  that  since  the

appellant was unsuccessful  in the  draw of  lots,  no

allotment could be made in her name.  It was further

stated  in  defence  that  since  no  plot  in  the

Govindpuram  Housing  Scheme  was  available,

allotment of plot was also not possible and that the

GDA had given a  public  notice  to  the  appellant  to

4

collect the entire amount deposited with interest at

the rate of 5% in a local widely circulated newspaper

“Hindustan  Times”.   Accordingly,  GDA  prayed  for

dismissal  of  the  application  of  the  appellant.

On 30th of March, 1998, a supplementary application

was filed by the appellant by which the appellant had

brought to the notice of the Commission that after

the reservation of the plot, a draw was to be held only

for allotting the specific plot, namely corner plot, road

facing, park facing etc. and that no draw was to be

held for allotment for those persons for whom a plot

had already been reserved.   

5. During the pendency of the application before

the Commission, the GDA had issued a Cheque for

Rs.  97,944/-  to  the  appellant  towards the  amount

deposited by her  along with interest  at  the  rate  of

5%.  The appellant received the said cheque under

protest,  but  subsequently  returned  the  entire

amount  by  drawing  another  cheque  for  the  like

amount in favour of the GDA.   

6. The  Commission,  by  its  Order  dated  9th of

May,  2001,  rejected  the  application  filed  by  the

5

appellant primarily on the ground that the appellant

not being an “allottee”  from the result  of  the draw

held,  she was not entitled to any plot,  as claimed,

and, therefore,  the charge of “unfair trade practice”

against  the  GDA/respondent  could  not  be

established.  It was further held that under Clause 9

of the  brochure,  the  appellant was only entitled  to

the refund of the deposited amount with interest at

the rate of 5%.  

7. Feeling  aggrieved  by  this  decision  of  the

Commission,  the  appellant  also  filed  a  Review

Application before the Commission, which came to be

registered  as R.A.  No.  27 of  2001,  which was also

rejected  by  the  Commission.   Accordingly,  being

aggrieved  and  dissatisfied  with  the  Orders  of  the

Commission,  the  appellant  has  filed  these  two

appeals in this Court, which was heard in presence

of the learned counsel for the parties.   

8. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties  and  examined  the  impugned  orders  of  the

Commission  and  also  other  materials  on  record

including  the  relevant  clauses  appearing  in  a

6

brochure  pertaining  to  the  Govindpuram  Housing

Scheme in question.  The only question that needs to

be  decided  in  these  appeals  is  whether  the

Commission was justified in rejecting the application

of  the  appellant  by  the  Orders  impugned  in these

appeals.  Before we answer the question posed before

us, it would be expedient at this stage to record the

findings  of  the  Commission  while  rejecting  the

application of the appellant.  The findings are to the

following effect :-

“Being not an allottee as the result of  the draw held, the applicant has no legal right to  the  plot  as  claimed.   Therefore,  the charge of unfair trade practices against the respondent is not established.  At best, the applicant  is  entitled  to  the  refund  of  the amount  deposited,  which  has  since  been received by it along with the interest at the rate of5%.  In the result, the compensation application stands dismissed.  No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

9. Keeping  the  aforesaid  findings  of  the

Commission in mind,  let  us now proceed  with the

respective  submissions  advanced  by  the  learned

counsel  for  the  parties.   The  learned  counsel

7

appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that

the appellant having made full and final payment to

the GDA well within the stipulated period as directed

by it and a plot was reserved for her which was to be

given to her in the year 1991 as per Clause 3 of the

reservation letter dated 10th of February, 1989 issued

by the GDA, the Commission was in error in holding

that  the  appellant  was  not  an  allottee  of  the  plot

because she had failed in the draw inasmuch as a

plot had already been reserved in the name of  the

appellant and the draw, if any, was only restricted in

allotment  of  specific  plot  numbers.   The  learned

counsel,  therefore,  submitted that the GDA, having

indulged in an “unfair trade practice”, the Orders of

the Commission deserved to be set aside.   

10. The submissions of the learned counsel for the

appellant were hotly contested by the learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the GDA.  Mr. Vijay

Hansaria,  learned senior  counsel  appearing for  the

respondent/GDA contended that since the appellant

was not successful in the draw of lots and, therefore,

the GDA was, within its jurisdiction, not to allot any

8

plot to the appellant.  It was further contended that

the  GDA  had  already  refunded  the  amount  of

Rs.97,944/-  to  the  appellant  towards  the  amount

deposited by the appellant along with interest at the

rate  of  5% and  that  amount  was  accepted  by  the

appellant,  therefore,  it  was  no  longer  open  to  the

appellant to challenge the Order of Cancellation after

having  accepted  the  amount.   Although,  the  said

amount  of  Rs.97,944/-  was  returned  to  the  GDA

subsequently,  it  was further  argued that  since  the

letter of the GDA dated 10th of February, 1989 was

only a Reservation Letter which was issued pursuant

to  the  application  made  by  the  appellant,  no

allotment  of  any  plot  was  made  in  favour  of  the

appellant on account of failure in the draw of lottery,

the  question of  canceling  the  reservation  of  a  plot

alleged  to  have  already  made  in  favour  of  the

appellant  could  not  arise  at  all.   Accordingly,

Mr. Hansaria,  learned senior counsel  appearing for

the  GDA sought  for  dismissal  of  the  appeals  and

submitted that the Orders passed by the Commission

were fully justified.   

9

11. Before  we  proceed  further,  it  is  necessary  to

reproduce  some  of  the  relevant  clauses  from  the

brochure,  which should be  required  for  the  proper

appreciation of the controversies involved.  Clause 9

of the Brochure is produced as under :-

“9.00 UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS

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 GDA is less than one year.   

9.20 However,  if  the  period of  deposit is more  than  one  year,  5%  simple  interest shall  be  paid  for  the  entire  period  of deposit.   

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 purpose  of  calculation  of  “period  of deposit”.   

9.40 The  registration  amount  shall  be refunded to the unsuccessful applicants by Vijaya Bank 84, Navyug Market Ghaziabad directly.   

9.50 The refund of registration amount to unsuccessful  applicant  shall  be  started after one month of the draw.   

9.60 Unsuccessful  applicants  should contact  personally  or  by  post  only  the

10

Vijaya  Bank  84,  Navyug  Market, Ghaziabad  for  refund  of  registration amount.   They are  required  to  surrender the  original  copy  of  challan  from (Applicant’s  copy)  duly  signed  on  the reverse to the Bank.   

9.70 GDA  itself  does  not  entertain  any applicants directly for refund of registration amount.”  

12. In  our  view,  the  Commission was  justified  in

rejecting  the  claim  of  the  appellant.   The  plot  in

question was a category of plot (Category D) which

was  only  reserved  for  the  appellant  but  from  the

Clauses, as mentioned above, it would be clear that

the final allotment was to be made as regards specific

plots only after the lottery related to such allotment

was made.  It is beyond dispute that in the draw of

lottery, the appellant was unsuccessful as her name

did not figure in the same.  It could not be disputed

that ‘plot reserved’ and a ‘plot allotted’ are different

aspects  altogether.   A  reading  of  the  Clauses,  as

indicated above, would clearly show that a plot was

reserved for her subject to the final allotment after

the lottery related to such allotment was made.  It

11

would be evident that Clause 9.10 of the Brochure of

the  GDA related  to  the  distribution of  plots  which

clearly stipulates that the candidates who were not

allotted any plot, would be entitled to get refund of

the entire amount deposited with the GDA and also

the reserved amount with interest at the rate of 5%,

if such amount was kept with the GDA for less than

one  year.  Clause  9.50  deals  with  refund  of

registration amount to unsuccessful applicant which

would start after one month of the draw. This Clause

clearly  indicates  that  the  refund  of  registration

amount  to  unsuccessful  applicant  shall  start  after

one month of the draw which would clearly show that

an applicant who is unsuccessful in the draw of lots

would only be entitled to the refund of  registration

amount  and  such  process  of  refunding  the

registration amount shall start only after the draw of

lots  are  finalized.  Therefore,  reading  the  aforesaid

Clauses in the brochure, it is evident that since the

appellant was not allotted any plot and only a plot

was reserved subject to holding of a lottery for the

specific plots for allotment, the appellant would not

12

acquire any legal right to such plot, only she would

be  entitled  to  get  refund  of  her  amount  deposited

with the GDA.    

13. In  view of  our  discussions made  hereinabove

and a clear reading of the clauses of the Brochure, it

would  be  evident  that  two  separate  parts  of  the

clauses  have  been  indicated  in  the  brochure.  The

first part was with regard to the reservation amount

and second part was with regard to allotment of plot

if an applicant was successful in the draw of lots. In

this connection, the letter issued by the GDA dated

10th of  February,  1989  may  be  looked  into.  The

subject indicated in the said letter to the appellant

was regarding reservation of Plot–D in Govindpuram:

then from the  letter  itself  it  would also be  evident

that a plot was reserved for the appellant. It would

also  be  evident  from  the  said  letter  that  certain

clauses were inserted by the GDA if an applicant was

defaulter in payment of the balance amount. In this

connection,  Clause  5  of  the  letter  dated  10th of

February, 1989 needs reproduction :-  

“Final  cost  of  the  plot  shall  be  determined after taking into account its specific location in

13

terms of park-facing, corner, major road facing etc.  for which extra rates are prescribed to be charged  which  will  be  intimated  after allotment of specific plot.”  

It was made clear in the said letter that the allotment

was  subject  to  conditions  “Draw  for  specific  Plot

number shall be held separately”. Therefore, it must

be inferred that no plot was allotted to the appellant

since  allotment  of  specific  plot  could not  be  made

because  of  failure  on  the  part  of  the  appellant  to

succeed in the draw of lots. In our view, a reading of

this letter dated 10th of February, 1989 and also the

different  clauses,  as  already  indicated  in  the

brochure, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the

Commission  that  the  appellant  could  not  have

acquired any legal right for allotment of a plot until

and unless he could be found to be successful in the

draw of lots. Therefore, in our view, it was an amount

for  reservation  of  Category-D  plot,  which  by  no

means, would lead to the inference of registration by

itself guaranteeing the allotment of a specific plot to

the appellant. In this connection, a decision of this

Court in Saurabh Prakash vs. DLF Universal Ltd.

14

[(2007) 1 SCC 228] was cited at the Bar. In our view,

the said decision of this Court is not applicable to the

present  case.  In  any  view  of  the  matter,  in  the

peculiar  facts and circumstances of  that case,  this

Court also expressed that the said decision shall not

be treated to be a precedent.  

14. Before the Commission, the GDA, on affidavit,

asserted  that  no  plot  was  available  for

allotment to the appellant in the Govindpuram

Housing  Scheme  and,  therefore,  it  would  be

practically impossible to allot any plot, which is

not available with GDA for allotment, even if it

is held that allotment of plot was made by GDA

in favour  of  the  appellant.  A  decision of  this

Court in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey vs.

Union of India & Ors. [(2007) 3 SCC 545] may

be referred as it was also cited at the Bar. In

that decision it has been clearly held that the

amount of interest to be awarded for refund of

any amount deposited by the candidate would

depend  upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  of

each case.  Such being the state of affairs, we

15

are  of  the  view  that  the  appellant  should be

allowed to get refund from the GDA the entire

sum with interest at the rate of18% not at the

rate of 5% as we find that from the brochure

itself,  it would be clear that in the event,  the

appellant could not deposit the entire amount

after the allotment is made within certain time,

18% interest shall be levied on the appellant. It

is  an  admitted  position  that  the  appellant

deposited the entire amount as directed by the

GDA  in  the  year  1989  and  the  order  of

cancellation of reservation of a plot in favour of

the appellant was made after more than seven

years  and,  therefore,  we  must  hold  that  the

respondent was liable to pay interest not at the

rate of 5% but at the rate of 18%. In the facts of

the  present  case,  since  the  GDA had utilized

the entire amount of the appellant for their own

purpose till  they had refunded the amount to

the  appellant,  we  confirm  the  order  of  the

Commission holding that there was no “unfair

trade  practice”,  but  in  the  facts  and

16

circumstances  of  the  present  case,  we  allow

these appeals in part and direct the respondent

to refund the money already deposited with the

GDA with interest at the rate of 18 per cent and

not at the rate of 5%.

15. Before we conclude, we may also mention that

the  Commission was  also  justified  in  rejecting  the

claim  of  the  appellant  for  allotment  of  a  plot  in

Govindpuram Housing Scheme at Ghaziabad as we

find  the  entire  amount  of  refund with  5% interest

was  initially  accepted  by  the  appellant,  but

subsequently, as noted herein earlier,  she returned

the  like  amount  to  the  GDA.  Having  accepted  the

amount and encashed the same, it is no longer open

to the appellant to turn around and claim allotment

of plot from the GDA.

16.For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed

only to the extent indicated above.  There will be

no order as to costs.

                                                          ………………… …….J.

                                [Tarun Chatterjee]

17

New Delhi                             …………………….J. August 29 , 2008                  [Harjit Singh Bedi]

18