Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/623/2022

Sneh Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jasmer Chand

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[1]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/623/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Sneh Bansal wife of Sh. Sunil Bansal, aged about 59 Years, resident of  H.No. 1166, Street No. 76, Deva Ram Park, Tri Nagar, North West Delhi - 110035.

….Complainant

Versus

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[2]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/624/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Salim Ahmed Shahsroha son of Sh. Chhailu Shahsroha, presently residing at House No. 777, Ward No. 19, Street opposite Ravidas Dharamshala, Geeta Colony, Azad Nagar, Hissar (Haryana) Pin 125007.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[3]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/625/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Subhash Gupta, aged about 74 Years s/o Gur Parshad, resident of  H.No.24, Raja Park, Ambala Cantt.

….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email:  

… Opposite Parties

 

[4]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/627/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Manish Mishra, aged about 53 years, son of Shri Jagdish Narain Mishra, Flat No. 204, Plot No.4, Sector-22, Nav Sansad Vihar CGHS, Dwarka, Dwarka Sector 19, South West Delhi, Delhi-110075.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email:  

… Opposite Parties

 

[5]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/628/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Ramdiya Sheoran, son of Shri Sheoli Ram, Resident of 685-B, Prem Nagar, Narwana, District Jind, Haryana, presently residing at House No. 1645 Sector-3, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[6]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/629/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Mrs.Santosh Bakshi wife of Sh. Satinder K.Bakshi r/o Q6/2, DLF, Phase-2, Sector 25, Gurgaon-122002.

….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email:  

… Opposite Parties

[7]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/630/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Naresh Goplani s/o Sh.Tek Chand Goplani r/o H.No.57, J.K.Apartment, A-3, Block, Paschim Vihar, West Delhi, Delhi-110063.

….Complainant

Versus

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[8]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/631/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Jagat Ram, aged 58 years, son of Shri Jalha Ram, resident of village Badhar, P/O Amman, Tehsil Bhoranj. Aman (44/64), Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, 177501.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[9]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/632/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Hridai Narain Singh, aged 67 years, son of Shri Har Singh, resident of House No. 266, Amaltas Avenue, Omaxe City Goniana Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda (Punjab).

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[10]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/633/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Jagdish Chander Jajoria son of Shri N.R. Jajaria, aged about 66 Years, resident of H.No. 4176, 40, Floor, Gali No. 64, Raigar Pura, Karol Bagh S.O Central Delhi, Delhi-110005.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[11]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/634/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Ramesh Nebinanagar 5 years, son of Late Shet LS. Nebbi resident of House No. 28, Block-5, Second Floor, Old Rajender Nagar Rajender Nagar, Cental Delhi, Delhi-110080.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[12]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/635/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Kuljeet Singh s/o Sh.Paramjit Singh r/o B-2/59, Janakpuri, New Delhi.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[13]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/636/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Inder Pal Sharma aged about 78 Years, son of Late Sh. Paras Ram Sharma, resident of H.No. 61, M.L.G. Flats, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi, Karol Bagh Central Delhi, Delhi-110005.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[14]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/637/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Vimal Kumar Duggal, aged 74 years, son of Shri Hans Raj Duggal, presently resident of Flat No. 25, Block-E, Ground Floor, Sector-54, Suncity Society, Gurugram. (previous address House No. 168, Sector-45-A, Chandigarh).

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[15]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/638/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Rajneesh Sahota, aged about 47 years, son of Sh.G.S. Sahota, resident of H.No. 5262/3, Modern Housing Complex, Mani ajra, Chandigarh (Previous address: H.No. 1822-F, Sector-7 C, Chandigarl:-160019).

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[16]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/639/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Smt. Kalawati Devi (Since deceased), wife of Shri Hridai Narain Singh, son of Shri Nar Singh, through her legal representatives:-

i)       Hridai Narain Singh, aged 67 years, son of Shri Nar Singh (husband of deceased allotee, Smt. Kalawati Devi)

ii)      Sharmila Devi, aged 45 years,

iii)     Vimla Devi, aged 43 years,

iv)     Reena, aged 41 years,

v)      Neetu, aged 34 years,

Serial (ii) to (v), all daughters of Shri Hridai Narain Singh, son of Shri Nar Singh (daughters of deceased allotee, Smt. Kalawati Devi)

vi)     Akhilesh, aged 39 years, son of Shri Hridai Narain Singh, son of Shri Nar Singh (son of deceased allotee, Smt. Kalawati Devi). All residents of House No. 266, Amaltas Avenue, Omaxe City Goniana Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda (Punjab)

.….Complainants

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[17]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/902/2022
Date of Institution	:	10/11/2022
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Paramjeet Singh, aged 44 years, son of Shri Parduman Singh resident of House No. 102, 2nd Floor, SP Mukherjee Park, Chaukhandi, West Delhi, Delhi 110018.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[18]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/102/2023
Date of Institution	:	27.02.2023
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Mrs. Nanda Rani Sharma wife of Mr. Rajiv Sharma, resident of H.No.96-97 First Floor, Pocket-3, Sector-22, Rohani, Delhi-110086.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[19]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/573/2023
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2023
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Tej Pal Singh, aged about 67 years, son of Shri Ude Singh, resident of House No. 261, Narsi Village, Sector-32, Karnal (Rural) (Part 1), Karnal, Haryana - 132001.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Admin Office: SCO No. 110-111, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, presently at House No. 1084, Sector- 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2        R.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., resident of House No. 1084, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Plot No. 3, Block-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018. Email: … Opposite Parties

[20]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/137/2023
Date of Institution	:	14.03.2023
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

 

Rukma Rawat wife of Sh. Jagmohan Singh Rawat, resident of House No. 1097, Sector 24-B, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Shalimar Estate Private Limited, SCO No. 110-111, Sector 8- Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2.       Ram Kumar Aggarwal, Director, M/s Shalimar Estates, Private Limited, resident of H. No. 1084, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh

 

3.       Kamlesh Aggarwal, Director, M/s Shalimar Estates, Private Limited, resident of H. No. 1084, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

… Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Ankit Kumar, Advocate, Proxy for Munish Gupta, Advocate for complainant(s) in cases at Sr.No.1 to 19 (through VC) Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant in case at Sr.No.20
	:	Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2 (thr. VC)
	:	OP-3 ex-parte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1.        By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants, in which common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts, apart from minor variation here and there, are also almost analogous. As such, during arguments, it was agreed upon by the parties that captioned consumer complaints can be disposed of by passing a consolidated order.
2.        For the sake of brevity, relevant details, necessary for the disposal of the aforesaid consumer complaints i.e. size of plot, amount deposited with the developer-OPs and  date of its payment in respect of each consumer complaint, are tabulated as under:-

1	2	3	4	5	6
S. No.	CC No.	Complainant’s Name	Size of Plot (in Marlas)	Amount Deposited	Date of Deposit
	CC/623/2022	Sneh Bansal	10	22275.00 38981.25 58194.00 54420.00 49996.00 44411.00 34570.00 29750.00	20.11.01 14.02.02 10.02.03 17.02.04 28.02.05 19.01.06 19.05.06 27.05.06
	CC/624/2022	Salim Ahmed Shahsroha	8	17820.00 26730.00 42928.00 38862.00 30257.00 31997.00 28840.00 26145.00	15.12.01 15.02.02 17.02.03 05.01.04 31.08.04 15.12.05 05.01.07 01.03.08
	CC/625/2022	Subhash Gupta	8	17820.00 26730.00 42322.50 38981.25 35640.00 32298.75 28957.50	20.12.01 18.02.02 13.02.03 23.01.04 02.02.05 25.01.06 20.01.07
	CC/627/2022	Shri Manish Mishra	6	12150.00 19000.00 29000.00 27000.00 28000.00 23000.00 38965.00	24.12.01 09.08.02 21.03.03 17.03.04 29.03.05 10.04.06 18.01.08
	CC/628/2022	Ramdiya Sheoran	6	12150.00 18764.00 28856.25 27775.00 24665.00 22022.00 19970.00 17465.00	22.12.01 22.04.02 31.01.03 20.04.04 22.02.05 17.01.06 15.02.07 07.02.08
	CC/629/2022	Mrs. Santosh Bakshi	10	22275.00 41765.62 192121.88	22.12.01 20.03.02 07.06.02
	CC/630/2022	Naresh Goplani	4	9720.00 14580.00 10000.00 5000.00 10000.00‘	03.08.02 12.11.02 16.10.03 22.01.04 18.03.04
	CC/631/2022	Jagat Ram	6	12150.00 18225.00 28856.00 83531.00	20.12.01 14.02.02 18.01.03 16.09.03
	CC/632/2022	Hridai Narain Singh	6	12150.00 18225.00 104793.75	15.11.01 19.02.02 23.01.03
	CC/633/2022	Jagdish Chander Jajoria	8	21600.00 32400.00 53200.00 48555.00 43200.00 40100.00 35982.00 32152.00	06.09.02 04.12.02 10.01.04 24.12.04 28.10.05 27.12.06 24.12.07 12.01.09
	CC/634/2022	Ramesh Nebhnani	4	8100.00 12150.00 19237.50 17720.00 16200.00 14685.00 23288.00	20.12.01 20.02.02 13.01.03 21.01.04 20.01.05 18.01.06 19.01.07
	CC/635/2022	Kuljeet Singh (second purchaser)	10	61256.25 38982.00 58193.44 53600.00 2500.00 122512.52	20.03.02 08.03.02 20.01.03 27.04.04 14.09.04 14.09.04
	CC/636/2022	Inder Pal Sharma	6	14580.00 21870.00 34627.50 31894.00 29160.00 26426.25 23693.00 20960.00	03.09.02 30.01.03 27.10.03 23.10.04 22.10.05 26.10.06 29.10.07 23.10.08
	CC/637/2022	Vimal Kumar Duggal	8	17820.00 26730.00 157981.72	19.01.02 16.02.02 07.04.03
	CC/638/2022	Rajneesh Sahota	6	12150.00 18225.00 28856.00 26578.00	20.12.01 02.02.02 18.01.03 16.01.04
	CC/639/2022	Smt. Kalawanti Devi	6	12150.00 18225.00 28856.25 26578.13 24300.00 22021.88 34931.25	15.11.01 19.02.02 23.01.03 22.01.04 22.01.05 21.01.06 22.01.07
	CC/902/2022	Paramjeet Singh	6	14580.00 21870.00 34627.50 31894.00 18225.00 37361.25 23692.50 20958.75	05.08.02 22.11.02 20.10.03 23.10.04 21.11.05 01.11.06 01.11.07 15.10.08
	CC/102/2023	Nanda Rani Sharma	10	22275.00 38981.00 30000.00 28194.00 49005.00	21.12.01 28.02.02 15.05.03 17.04.04 12.04.05
	CC/573/2023	Tej Pal Singh	10	27000.00 47250.00 70537.50 64968.75 55000.00 53831.25	28.10.02 29.11.02 23.10.03 27.10.04 25.10.05 25.11.06
	CC/137/2023	Rukma Rawat	4	8100.00 12150.00 30375.00 30000.00 25611.00 11644.00	22.12.01 18.02.02 2305.02 18.02.06 13.01.07 15.01.08

 

3.        To dictate the order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint No.603 of 2023-Sneh Bansal Vs. Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Others.
4.        It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that in order to setup a residential colony in the Villages of Naggal and Alipur, District Panchkula, the OPs No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘developer OPs’) entered into two agreements, one dated 28.08.2001 for the purchase of 211 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land and another agreement dated 16.10.2001 for the purchase of another land measuring 72 Kanals 5 Marlas. Later on two sale deeds dated 16.05.2022 were executed i.e. first to the extent of 194 Kanals 18 Marlas and the second to the extent of 16 Kanals 12 Marlas whereas the third sale deed dated 30.05.2002 was executed to the extent of 112 Kanals 04 Marlas. After the aforesaid sale agreements, the developer OPs  got the layout plan prepared qua the aforesaid land and carved out roads, laid sewages, water supply lines, erected electricity poles and demarcated the plots for sale. The developer OPs advertised the sale of various plots of different sizes i.e. 10 Marlas (250 Sq. Yards), 8 Marlas (200 Sq. Yards), 6 Marlas (150 Sq. Yards) and 4 Marlas (100 Sq. Yards), inviting the general public to purchase the plots as per the layout plan at the floated rates. The booking of the plots was advertised to begin on 24.10.2001 and closed on 24.12.2001. During the aforesaid period, the developer OPs received 565 applications from the prospective buyers, including the complainant, along with the prescribed earnest money through the Allahabad Bank. After the scrutiny of the applications, more than 500 plots were allotted to the people, including the complainant, upto March, 2002. As per the scheme, it was the discretion of the allottees of a plot to either pay the price of the allotted plot in one lump sum or pay the same in 6 annual equal installments with 15% interest thereon. The complainant vide her application dated 20.11.2001, applied for 10 Marlas of plot and paid a sum of Rs. 22,275/-   as earnest money. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs.38,981.25/- to the developer OPs  on 14.02.2002, totaling the earnest money as Rs.61,256.25/- and  the complainant had chosen to pay the price of the plot in question in six annual equal installments after payment of earnest money.  The remaining amount of Rs.1,83,768.75/- was to be paid through six annual equal installments  as per the sale agreement dated 18.03.2002. At time of the allotments of the aforesaid plots to the allottees, the aforesaid land was outside the Controlled Area, as defined in Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Controlled Areas Act, 1963’) and Urban Area, as defined under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Urban Areas Act, 1975’).  The aforesaid fact came to the notice of the allottees only at the time when one of the allottee applied for no objection certificate to OP No.3 - Director, Department of Town and Country Planning (hereinafter referred to as ‘DTCP’) for raising construction  and the DTCP replied to the said allottee on 06.05.2002 that since the site of the plot was outside the controlled area, so there was no necessity for any 'No Objection Certificate for raising construction.  Thereafter, the developer OPs started the process of development of the colony in the land. The complainant was allotted Plot No.11-P of 10 Marlas of size in the Vill. Naggal, Hadbast No. 238, District Panchkula. After sometime, the Government of Haryana had prepared a plan vide drawing No.D.T.P.(P) 726/2002, dated 06.05.2002, for the purpose of Section 4(1)(b) of 1963 Act and in the said drawing the project of the developer OPs  was not shown in the plan.  On the very same day i.e. 06.02.2022 when the application of one of the allottees of the plot in the aforesaid land for obtaining no objection certificate from the DTCP for raising the construction upon the plot was returned,  by declaring therein that the said land was not covered under the Controlled Areas Act.  Thereafter on 11.07.2002, the Government of Haryana issued the notification under Section 4(1)(b) of the 1963 Act declaring the area around the existing boundary of the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Industrial Estate of Village Alipur. District Panchkula to be a controlled area. After the notification, whatever development works were done by the developer OPs  in the said project were taken as unauthorized construction and a notice was issued by the DTCP to the developer OPs  under section 12 of the 1963 Act on 26.07.2002 and the same was replied on 08.08.2002 but the developer OPs were directed to demolish the construction already raised. Against the aforesaid notice, the developer OPs preferred an appeal before the Tribunal but the same was dismissed on 28.01.2003. Against the said order, the developer OPs filed CWP No.2437 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.   However, the complainant paid the remaining amount of sale price as per agreed installments to the developer OPs in the following manner:-

Sr. No.	Date	Amount Paid
1	10.02.2003	58,194/-
2	17.02.2004	54,420/-
3	28.02.2005	49,996/-
4	19.01.2006	44,411/-
5	19.05.2006	34,570/-
6.	27.05.2006	29,750/-
		₹2,71,341/-

       The developer OPs informed the complainant that as they had already filed the aforesaid writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and there was every likelihood of its acceptance as the law is in their favour. Finally, the aforesaid writ petition was decided in favour of the developer OPs on 05.10.2016. The State of Haryana preferred Special Leave Petition i.e. Civil Appeal No. 6901 of 2021 against the aforesaid judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and vide its judgment dated 16.11.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court by holding that if the Director, DTCP, Haryana had prepared the plans of the declared controlled area under section 4(1) of the 1963 Act and the land of the developer OPs was not shown in the said plan of the DTCP, as the developed area or under development as a colony. then it was open to the developer OPs to file their objections as provided under section 5(5) of the 1963 Act, against the said notification within 30 days of its publication, which was not done by the developer OPs and straightway the developer OPs opted to challenge the said notifications under the 1963 Act and 1975 Act, before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana by way of aforesaid writ petition.  The complainant requested the OPs to apply for permission and license from the Government to develop the said colony but to no avail and in this manner, the OPs have indulged themselves into deficiency in service towards the complainant in respect of the plot. Had the developer OPs taken the appropriate steps at the relevant time, they could have taken permission from the concerned authorities. Not only this, even after passing of the judgments, the developer OPs have not initiated any step for seeking the requisite permissions from the Government.  During the pendency of the complaint, the developer OPs approached the DTCP  in terms of the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court  for seeking necessary approvals and as such the DTCP has also been impleaded as OP No.3. It is further alleged that the DTCP has not taken any step to grant permissions to the developer OPs and the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint seeking possession of the plot along with interest and compensation etc.

5. OPs No.1 and 2/developer OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their  written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction also that there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, on merits it is admitted that the subject plot was allotted to the complainant and the complainant paid the aforesaid amount to them. However, it is alleged that the developer OPs had carried out various development works after the allotment to the allottee(s) but the same was demolished by the State Government and thereafter the development works were not carried out on the spot due to the stay order passed in different courts. It is further alleged that  against the act of the State Government, the developer OPs approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 2437 of 2003 and thereafter a public notice dated 17.01.2007  (Annexure OP-1) was published by them  as a goodwill gesture and in order to facilitate the allottees by intimating them that tentatively the possession of plots in the subject project was to be given as agreed upon but since the matter is subjudiced before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on some technical issues as such possession of the plots may be delayed till the decision of the Hon'ble Court and in case any regular intending allottees is not interested to wait till that time he/she is free to withdraw his application from the scheme and can apply for refund of his deposited amount and in case of any adverse decision by the Hon'ble Court due to which the developer OPs will be forced to scrap the whole scheme then they will be entitled for full refund of their deposited amount till that time after the decision of the Hon'ble Court. In pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the developer OPs had represented to the State and applied for exemption and relaxation of the land for usage of residential colony u/s  7A of Controlled Areas Act, 1963 and u/s 23 of Urban Areas Act, 1975. A copy of the said application and subsequent reminders are Annexure OP-2 (Colly.).  In this manner, the developer OPs are not guilty of unfair trade practice as alleged. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
6. In its separate written statement, OP No.3 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and that the complainant(s) are not consumer qua it and the complainant is seeking directions to give requisite permissions and license as per the requirement under Section 7 of the Controlled Areas Act, 1963  with regard to the land. It is further alleged that the developer OPs with a view to set up a residential plotted colony in the Villages of Naggal and Alipur, District Panchkula had entered into two agreements with the land owners and got the sale deeds executed in their favour and before the execution of the sale deeds, OP No.1 got the layout plan prepared, carved out roads, laid sewerage and water supply lines, erected electricity poles and demarcated plots for the same. OP No.1 started the booking w.e.f. 24.10.2001 to 24.12.2001 and allotted more than 500 plots to different allottees upto March 2002. In the year 1992, the State Government planned New Industrial Estate, Alipur District Panchkula with the objectives of discouraging migration from the surrounding areas to Panchkula town and for that purpose approximately 1052.63 hectares area was declared as 'Controlled Area' by the State Govt. vide Gazette notification dated 11.07.2002.  The State Government also issued notification dated 31.12.2002 under the provisions of the Urban Areas Act, 1975 and as Section 6 of the Controlled Areas Act, 1963 prohibits erection or re- erection of any building in controlled area without previous permission of the Director and OP No.1 started the construction even without submitting any application for change of land, the aforesaid act of OP No.1 was clear violation of the Act ibid and accordingly the show cause notice was issued to it and was asked to restore the site to its original position. Thereafter, OP No.1 filed an appeal u/s 12 of the Controlled Areas Act, 1963 against the order dated 08.08.2022, which was dismissed on 28.01.2023.  After that the developer OPs approached the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 05.10.2016 set aside the show cause notice as well as the order of the Tribunal.  However, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 16.11.2021 and thereafter, the developer OPs submitted the application dated 15.04.2022 for amendment of the final development plan 2013 but in view of the above position, no such exemption can be granted to them by the Department. It is further alleged that the grant of license for setting up a colony can be considered only if OP No.1 applies for the same in accordance with Section 3 of the Urban Areas Act, 1975.  It is further alleged that only a part of the land owned by the Developer-OPs falls within the residential zone and partly falls within the industrial zone and as per the Final Development Plan 2021 AD for Alipur, published vide notification dated 11.01.2013, the residential colony cannot be permitted to set up in the area earmarked for public and semi public uses. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
7. In separate rejoinders, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
8. In order to prove their case, the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that as the developer OPs purchased a chunk of land in Villages of Naggal and Alipur, District Panchkula from the erstwhile owners vide three different sale deeds in order to set up a residential colony and after getting the layout plan prepared and carving out the roads, laying sewerages etc. had advertised the sale of plots of different sizes by opening the booking from 24.10.2001 to 24.12.2001 and on receiving earnest money as well as sale price from the allottee(s) allotted the subject plot(s) and thereafter started the development works by raising the construction on the spot but after i.e. 11.07.2002, the Govt. of Haryana issued the notification under Section 4(1)(b) of the Controlled Areas Act, 1963as well as Urban Areas Act, 1975 and notice to the developer OPs for demolition of the structure raised by them and against the said act of the State Government, the developer OPs challenged the said notification /order before the Hon'ble High Court and vide judgment dated 05.10.2016, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the said notification but in appeal, the judgment dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment, dated 16.11.2021 with the observations that the developer OPs and the allottees can approach to the competent authorities for exemption under both the enactments and thereafter the developer OPs had approached the state government/competent authorities for seeking exemption in pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, dated 16.11.2021 and till date no such exemption or permission has been granted by the State Government, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the developer OPs and the complainant(s) is/are entitled for possession along with compensation as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant(s), or if the complaint(s) of the complainant(s) against the developer OPs  has/have become infructuous after the passing of the judgment dated 16.11.2021 by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the complainant(s) is/are not entitled for possession and rather the complainant(s) is/are entitled for refund along with interest and compensation and the complaint(s) of the complainant(s) against OP No.3 being not maintainable, is/are liable to be dismissed.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence adduced by both the parties and the same is required to be scanned carefully
   3. Perusal of Annexure C-1 i.e. application for allotment of subject plot indicates that the complainant had applied for subject plot on 20.11.2001 and accordingly, the allotment letter dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure C-2) qua Plot No.11 of 10 Marlas was issued by the developer OPs. Annexure C-3 is the copy of the sale agreement dated 18.03.2002 executed between the parties. Annexures C-4 to 10 are the receipts indicating that the aforesaid amounts were paid by the complainant to the developer OPs. Annexure C-11 is the copy of the judgment dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide which the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 05.10.2016 was set aside.
   4. Perusal of Annexure OP-2 clearly indicates that the developer OPs applied for permission/exemption with the State Government/OP No.3 in pursuant to the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
   5. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that as it stands proved on record that the developer OPs had collected huge amount from the complainant(s) even before acquiring the ownership title of the land in question, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the complainant(s) are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the developer OPs  contended that as it stands proved on record that the development works of the subject project could not be completed due to the litigation with the State Government qua the land in question, there is no question of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the developer OPs and the complaint of the complainant(s) is liable to be dismissed.
   6. It is an admitted case of the parties that three sale deeds qua the land in question were executed on 16.05.2002 and 30.05.2002 vide which the valid ownership/title was acquired by the developer OPs from the erstwhile owners.  However, even before acquiring the aforesaid title, the developer OPs had allotted the plots to the complainant(s) in the month of Jan.2002 vide Annexure C-2 and further executed the sale agreement (Annexure C-3) in the month of March, 2002 i.e. much before acquiring of the title and in their name, by collecting huge amounts from the allottee(s), making it clear that the aforesaid act of the developer OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
   7. Not only this it is further clear that the developer OPs have launched the project by allotting the subject plot(s) and collecting huge amounts from the allottee(s) even before they got clear title of the acquired land which itself is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the developer OPs.  It was also so held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Atul Maheshwari and Ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC) and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under :-

“OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land”.

8. It has thus been proved on record that money had been collected by the OPs from the prospective buyers including the complainants, without obtaining statutory approvals/clearances. Collecting money from the prospective buyers and selling the plots/units in the project, without obtaining the required approvals/ clearances/amended clearance is an unfair trade practice on the part of the project proponent. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. Vs. Vidya Raghupathi & Anr., First Appeal No. 1787 of 2016, decided on 31.5.2018 and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:-

“…………….This Commission in Brig. (Retd.) Kamal Sood Vs. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., (2007) SCC Online NCDRC 28, has observed that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder to collect money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permission and that it is duty of the Builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers.

It is an admitted fact that the sale deeds were executed in the year 2006 and by 2009 the completion certificate was not issued. The Occupancy Certificate was issued only on 25.09.2017 during the pendency of these Appeals before this Commission. Allotting Plots or Apartments before procuring the relevant sanctions and approvals is per se deficiency…………”

9. Now another question arises for determination before this Commission is if the complainant(s) is/are entitled for the reliefs of possession of the subject plot/alternative plot(s) in pursuant to the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court or the complainant(s) is/are entitled for refund of the deposited amount along with interest and compensation. In order to determine the aforesaid point, we have to go through the background of the case along with the relevant provisions of both the enactments  and the observations made in the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
10. It is an admitted case of the parties that the developer OPs started the development works over the land in question after allotting the plots to the complainant(s) but the said construction was demolished from the site for want of permission/exemption from the State Government under both the enactments. It is further an admitted case of the parties that against the said act of the State Government, the developer OPs had challenged the said order/notification issued by the State Government under both the enactments before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 05.10.2016 had quashed the said notification but in an appeal, the aforesaid judgment dated 05.10.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment, dated 16.11.2021. Thus one thing is clear that the developer OPs have made every effort to get the subject project cleared from the State Government even by approaching the Hon'ble High Court and before the Hon’ble Apex Court but they were unsuccessful as it was even observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment that the developer OPs had to follow appropriate route for seeking approvals/exemptions from the Government/ competent authorities instead of straightway challenging the provisions of the statutes before the Hon'ble High Court.
11. Admittedly the State Government has ordered for demolition of the structure from the site for violation of the provisions of both the enactments. Accordingly, the relevant portions of the aforesaid enactments are reproduced as under:-

Section 2(c) of the Urban Area Act:-

“(c) “colony” means an area of land divided or proposed to be divided into [plots or flats] for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, but an area of land divided or proposed to be divided –

(i)    for the purpose of agriculture; or

(ii)   as a result of family partition, inheritance, succession or partition of joint holding not with the motive of earning profit; or

(iii) in furtherance of any scheme sanctioned under any other law; or

(iv) by the owner of a factory for setting up a housing colony for the labourers or the employees working in the factory; provided there is no profit motive; or

(v)   when it does not exceed one thousand square metres, shall not a colony;”

Section 23 of the Urban Areas Act, 1975

23.  Power to exempt. ­ If the Government is of the opinion that the operation of any of the provisions of this Act causes undue hardship or circumstances exist which render it expedient so to do, it may, subject to such terms and conditions as it may impose, by a general or special order, exempt any class of persons or areas from all or any of the provisions of this Act.”

Section 4 of the Controlled Areas Act, 1963:-

“4. (1) The Government may by notification declare the whole or any part of any area adjacent to and within a distance of –

(a) eight kilo­meters on the outer sides of the boundary of any town; or

(b) two kilo­meters on the outer sides of the boundary of any industrial or housing estate, public institution or an ancient and historical monument.

specified in such notification to be a controlled area for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The Government shall also cause the contents of the declaration made under sub­section (1) to be published in at least two newspapers printed in a language other than English.”

 

12. The learned Counsel for the complainant(s) submitted that as OP No.3/DTCP in its short version has submitted that grant of license for setting up residential colony can be considered only if the Developer-OPs applies for grant of license in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Urban Areas Act, 1975 read with rules issued by the State Government. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Developer-OPs submitted that OP No.3 has also further clarified in its written version that only a part of the land owned by the Developer-OPs falls within the residential zone and partly falls within the industrial zone and as per the Final Development Plan 2021 AD for Alipur, published vide notification dated 11.01.2013, the residential colony cannot be permitted to set up in the area earmarked for public and semi public uses. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the Developer-OPs further drew our attention to the documents submitted by way of additional evidence, which have not been rebutted by the complainant(s). As per the defence of the Developer-OPs, the residential colony was planned over the land measuring 40 acres consisting of 723 plots of different sizes and at that time, there was no restriction. However, in the year 2021, after evaluating the Final Development Plan, 2021, the Developer-OPs were apprised that only 20% of the total land i.e. less than 9 acres falls under the residential area whereas the remaining land falls in public/semi public zone, sector roads, industrial roads, green belt as well as in industrial zone, which have also been shown in the Sector Plan (Annexure OP-5).
13. Perusal of the sector plan (Annexure OP-5) clearly indicates the major portion of the land in question has been taken away /identified by the Haryana Government either for Industrial Zone or for public/semi public zone etc. as shown in red and black colours and only small area shown in blue colour remained left with the Developer-OPs. Further when the Government of Haryana vide letter dated 26.10.20015 (Annexure OP-6) addressed to OP No.3 made it clear that as per the New Integrated Licensing Policy, 2015, the Government has approved the said policy and as per Clause 6.1 of the same which deals with the Integrated Residential Colony made it mandatory minimum 25 acres of land for such Integrated Residential Colony and when it has come on record that the Developer-OPs have left only with about 9 acres of land, they are not even eligible to get the license for setting up a residential colony as per the aforesaid Integrated License Policy 2015.
14. The learned Counsel for the complainant further relied upon the judgments passed by our own Hon’ble State Commissions dated 06.04.2023 and 11.12.2023 in similar situated cases against the Developer-OPs, they have been directed to deliver possession of the respective plots/dwelling units, to the complainants in each case, after providing all basic amenities, within a period of one year from the date of passing of this order, keeping in mind the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  The State Of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) along with interest and compensation etc. and the same be also granted in the present case(s). However with due respect to the above judgments passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission as it is clear from the judgments that the aforesaid facts with respect to the New Integrated Licensing Policy, 2015 and Final Development Plan, 2021 approved by the State Government, have not been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble State Commission, vide which major portion of the land of the residential colony has already been taken away from the Developer-OPs for Industrial Zone or for public/semi public zone etc. after the allotments of plot(s) in favour of the complainant(s) and the Developer-OPs have left with only 9 acres of land over which no such colony for 750 plots can be set up, hence it is clear that the Developer-OPs are not eligible for grant of exemption/license for the development of the colony, being beyond their control and impossible for them to deliver possession of subject plot(s), the relief of possession as prayed for by the complainant(s) cannot be granted.
15. Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in Sanjiv Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. Lodha Crown Buildmart Private Limited, II (2023) CPJ 271 (NC) has held that inordinate delay in offer of possession, amounts to ‘deficiency in service’ and home buyer can ask for refund on this ground alone and if unreasonable delay in offer of possession is proved then it is sufficient to grant relief of refund and other grounds are not liable to be examined.  The relevant headnote of order is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(a)(i) — Housing — Booking of duplex flat — Non-delivery of possession — Deficiency in service — Inordinate delay in offer of possession, amounts to ‘deficiency in service’ and home buyer can ask for refund, on this ground alone — If unreasonable delay in offer of possession is proved then it is sufficient to grant relief of refund and other grounds are not liable to be examined — As there was unreasonable delay in offer of possession, complainants are entitled for refund of full amount under Clause 11.3 of agreement — Home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of flat for indefinite period — Opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by complainants with interest @ 9% per annum from date of respective deposit till date of payment.”

16. In Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta,  (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to the award of compensation to alleviate the harassment and agony to a consumer.
17. In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while explaining the ambit of the jurisdiction of the adjudicatory fora under the Consumer Protection Act observed that  “…The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done”. 
18. In the light of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments and coupled with the facts of the instant complaints, as it has come on record that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs Nos.1 and 2 as discussed above and the possession of the subject plots cannot be handed over to the complainant(s) due to which the complainant(s) has/have suffered mental agony and harassment and further by taking into consideration the fact that the overall market price of the land has also been increased, the complainant(s) are entitled to reasonable and fair compensation to the tune of ₹5,00,000/- in each complaint in addition to the refund for deposited amounts with interest.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant(s) has/have partly proved the cause of action set up in the complaint(s) and the complainant(s) is/are entitled for refund of deposited amounts along with interest and compensation.

10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint along with connected complaints is/are partly allowed qua the developer-OPs and the developer OPs i.e. OPs No.1 and 2 are directed as under :-

1. to refund the deposited amounts to the complainant(s) (as depicted in column No.(5) of the table in para No.2 above), alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of each deposit onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,00,000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment in each complaint;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant(s) as costs of litigation in each complaint.

11. This order be complied with by the developer OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12. However, the consumer complaint against the OP No.3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs as the complainant(s) has/have failed to prove any deficiency in service against it.
13.   A certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of the other connected consumer complaints, mentioned above, which shall form part and parcel of that file.
14. Pending other miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
15. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

01/10/2024			Sd/-  [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member