1.      This petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the State Commission’s Order dated 18.11.2013 in appeal no. 1537 of 2009 arising out of the District Commission’s Order dated 20.08.2009 in complaint no. 291 of 2008.

2.      We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the material on record including inter alia the District Commission’s Order dated 20.08.2009, the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 18.11.2013 and the petition.

3.       The matter relates to a residential plot allotted by the development authority (the respondent herein) to the complainant (the petitioner herein).

The complainant was the subsequent allottee of a residential plot admeasuring 300 sq. yards which was transferred to him from the original allottee vide the development authority’s letter dated 25.03.2002. He submitted site and construction plans on 03.08.2007. The development authority sent a demand letter dated 19.09.2007 for Rs. 3,27,634/- and another letter dated 28.12.2007 giving the break-up to be Rs. 1,13,514/- as the balance amount due, Rs. 1,12,334/- as the penal interest and Rs. 1,01,786/- as the extension / non-construction charges i.e. total Rs. 3,27,634/-. Aggrieved, he filed a complaint before the District Commission.

4.      The nub of the matter is that 25% of the cost of the plot had been deposited by the original allottee prior to the issuance of the letter of allotment dated 05.03.2002. As per the terms and conditions contained therein the balance 75% of the cost of the plot was to be paid either in lumpsum within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in 05 quarterly equated instalments. It was also stipulated that in case lumpsum payment is made within 60 days rebate of 5% on the 75% amount due will be given. Extension / non-construction charges had been paid by the original allottee upto 05.03.2005. 

One issue inherent in the dispute was whether the 60 day period for making the balance 75% payment will be counted from the date of issue of the original allotment letter i.e. 05.03.2002 or from the date of issue of the re-allotment letter i.e. 25.03.2002. Another issue was whether further extension / non-construction charges beyond 05.03.2005 will be chargeable and if so from which date and for which period.

5.      The District Commission vide its Order dated 20.08.2009 held that the 60 day period for making balance 75% payment will be counted from the date of issue of the re-allotment letter i.e. 25.03.2002. It also held that further extension / non – construction charges will be chargeable from 25.03.2005 (This is the date of submission of the site and construction plans that has been written by the District Commission in its Order. As per the record the correct date of submission of the plans was 03.08.2007. Apparently the date written by the District Commission is a clerical mistake. However this has no material effect on its reasoning and findings.)

The District Commission quashed the demand letter dated 28.12.2007 and ordered the development authority to sanction the plans within one month on payment of extension / non-construction charges for the period from 25.03.2005 to 30.08.2007. It also awarded Rs. 10 thousand as compensation including cost of litigation.

6.      The development authority appealed before the State Commission.

The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 18.11.2013 partly accepted the appeal. It held that the 60 day period for making balance 75% payment will be counted from the date of issue of the original allotment letter i.e. 05.03.2002 and not from the date of the issue of the re-allotment letter i.e. 25.03.2002. It also held that further extension / non – construction charges will be chargeable from 05.03.2005 till the date of completion of construction as required under the rules. It modified the Order of the District Commission to the extent that as the complainant had not deposited 75% of the balance amount within 60 days from the date of issue of the original allotment letter i.e. 05.03.2002 he will not be entitled to rebate of 5%. He will be under obligation to deposit the 5% amount alongwith the agreed rate of interest upto the date of payment and similarly the extension / non-construction charges will also be deposited from 05.03.2005 onwards till the date of completion of construction as required under the rules.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant argues that the period for depositing the balance 75% amount should be counted from the date of the re-allotment letter i.e. 25.03.2002 and not from the date of the original allotment letter i.e. 05.03.2002. He further argues that the complainant had submitted his site and construction plans on 03.08.2007. The development authority did not sanction the plans. Therefore he was not at fault and the development authority is not entitled to collect any further extension / non-construction charges beyond 03.08.2007.

Learned counsel for the development authority argues that the terms and conditions in respect of the time-frame for payment of the balance consideration as contained in the original allotment letter did not get changed in case of a subsequent re-allotment being allowed and remain binding on the subsequent allottee as well. The re-allotment letter dated 25.03.2002 was issued after the proposed subsequent allottee i.e. the complainant inter alia submitted an affidavit accepting the terms and conditions of the original allotment letter dated 05.03.2002. In the said original allotment letter it was clearly stipulated that 5% rebate on the balance 75% amount will be given in case lumpsum payment is made within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter. Since the balance 75% amount was not paid within 60 days of the date of issue of the original allotment letter the 5% rebate was not admissible. The balance amount still due towards the cost of the plot was to be recovered by the development authority from the complainant along with penal interest as provided for under the rules and the terms and conditions of allotment. Learned counsel further argues that the original allottee had paid extension / non-construction charges till 05.03.2005. Therefore charges for the period beyond 05.03.2005 till the date of actual completion of construction were due as per the rules and the terms and conditions of the allotment. The development authority did not sanction the plans as the outstanding dues towards cost of the plot and towards extension / non-construction charges were pending. The development authority was not at any fault. Learned counsel also submits that the approach adopted by the development authority towards the complainant herein is universally followed in all cases of re-allotment and of extension / non-construction.

8.      We note that clause 3 of the original allotment letter dated 05.03.2002 states: “The balance 75% of the price of the plot can be paid either in lumpsum within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in 5 quarterly (3 monthly) equated instalments. First instalment falling due after three months from the issue of allotment letter, along with interest @ 15% per annum. In case lumpsum payment is made within 60 days, a rebate of 5% on the amount 75% due will also be given. Interest shall start running from the date of issue of allotment letter.” (emphasis supplied) It is explicitly mentioned therein that to avail of the 5% rebate the balance 75% amount had to be paid within 60 days of the date of issue of the allotment letter.

We also note that the re-allotment letter dated 25.03.2002 mentions that “- - - you have also submitted the affidavit accepting the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.- - -”. (emphasis supplied)

The condition was explicit and unequivocal, that to avail of 5% rebate the balance 75% payment had to be made within 60 days of the date of issue of the original allotment letter. The terms and conditions of the original allotment were binding on the subsequent allottee i.e. the complainant and he was aware that the same were binding on him (he had inter alia given an affidavit in acceptance).

9.      We may observe here that the development authority herein is a government authority, it works ( / is required and expected to work) as per the prescribed administrative, financial and technical rules laid-down by the government, its accounts are subject to audit, its officials are accountable.

In matters having financial implications a government development authority has to function strictly in accordance with its financial norms and rules. Matters like rebate on the amount payable cannot be subjectively decided on a case-to-case basis, they have to be objectively implemented strictly in accordance with the rules and the terms and conditions of allotment.

In general, a government development authority imposes extension / non-construction charges in case construction on the allotted land is not carried out within the period stipulated. One purpose behind this policy is to ensure time-bound development of the area, another is to preclude prospecting through allotment of land. In case of default in payment of legitimate dues, a development authority generally demands such dues before sanctioning site and construction plans.

10.    In a nutshell, in the instant case, the development authority was asking for the balance dues towards the cost of the plot with penal interest as per the rules without giving the benefit of rebate since the time period for making lumpsum deposit for availing of rebate had not been adhered to and it was also asking for extension / non-construction charges as per the rules.

The complainant has not been able to show that the authority had acted in contravention to its applicable administrative or financial rules or that it was in any way making an unjustified or arbitrary demand. He has also not been able to show that he has been discriminated against or differently treated in comparison to other similarly situate persons.

11.    The District Commission has clearly erred in (mis)appreciating the facts and evidence. On the other hand, the State Commission has appraised the facts and evidence without any cognizable error or irregularity and has correctly approached and answered both the issues germane in the matter.

12.    The petition is dismissed.

13.    The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.