Judgment:
Bhanwar Singh, President:
1. We have heard Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the GDA. Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain who was present in person yesterday before us had already made his submissions. He had referred to the decision of the Apex Court in GDA v. Balbir Singh and Others, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161, and with reference to the said judgment contended that whatever amount as interest and compensation has been paid to him cannot be refunded on the request of the GDA. Admittedly, Sri Narendra Kumar Jain was not a party to the bunch of petitions before the Supreme Court in the matter of GDA v.Balbir Singh and Others.
2. Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain before this round of litigation filed another complaint case No. 1314/1994 which was decided by the District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad on 18.12.1996. The GDA was directed to hand over possession of plot No. D/363, Govindpuram to the complainant within three months and also pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The said judgment was confirmed by this Commissionvide judgment dated 9.10.2000 passed in Appeal No. 18 of 1997. In compliance to the aforesaid verdict of the District Consumer Forum the respondent/complainant was inducted into possession of the aforesaid plot on January 23, 1998. Subsequent to the delivery of possession of the plot the GDA demanded refund of Rs. 26,282 which was paid by it to the complainant on account of interest during the period in which the stay order of the Allahabad High Court remained in vogue from 1.3.1992 to 16.12.1993. With this demand of refund the respondent/complainant was constrained to file another complaint case No. 149/2005 seeking restraint against the GDA from realizing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 26,482. His complaint was allowedvide impugned judgment dated 7.6.2007 i.e. the judgment which has been challenged before us in the instant appeal. This is how the core issue regarding refund of the aforesaid money has come before us.
3. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the GDA has placed reliance upon the order of the Honble National Commission passed in Revision Petition No. 306/2001. The said order was issued on 26.8.2002 and the said order of the Honble National Commission appears to indicate that the Revision of the GDA filed against the verdict of this Commission passed in Appeal No. 18/1997 stood disposed of in the light of the Honble National Commissions verdict in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar. In continuation of his submission Mr. S.K. Sharma has now referred to the judgment of Darsh Kumars case, a copy whereof is Annexure-9 on record. The concluding para No. 37 is of relevance for us and it postulates that while calculating the period of interest in the case of allottees in Govindpuram Scheme of GDA, interest shall not be payable for the period during which stay of the Honble Court remained in vogue. Undisputedly, the litigation before us in the present appeal pertains to the house allotted to Sri Narendra Kumar Jain in Govindpuram Scheme of the GDA. If we follow the judgment of the National Commission as referred to above, the respondent shall not be entitled to claim interest for the duration of stay order of the Allahabad High Court.
4. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the demand of the GDA for refund of Rs. 26,482 was absolutely justified. Since the stay order of the Allahabad High Court did not permit the GDA to proceed with the development of the land and construction activities, it cannot be blamed for the deficiency in service and, accordingly, cannot be held liable to pay any interest to the allottee.
5. The contention of Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain that the interest once paid shall not be refundable as decided in Balbir Sharmas case (supra) , is not tenable for the simple reason that Sri Narendra Kumar Jain was not a party to the litigation pending before the Honble Supreme Court in bunch of petitions whereupon Balbir Sharma case was decided. Sri Jain will, therefore, not be entitled to derive any advantage of the said verdict.
6. The long and short of the discussions made above is that Sri Narendra Kumar Jain the respondent of this appeal has to refund the amount of Rs. 26,282 within six weeks failing which the GDA shall be competent to get its recovery through execution proceedings.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 7.6.2007 of the District Consumer Forum is set aside and the complaint of the respondent stands dismissed.