BRIJ PAL SHARMA versus GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 768 · Decided: 18-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BRIJ PAL SHARMA 
v. 
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
AUGUST 18, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Allotment of Plot-Deposit of full 
amount-However, failure to deliver possession-On the ground of Can-
cellation of Scheme in one case and prevention of development/construction 
C of work on account of stay order-Interest @ 18% on refunded amount, 
grant of-Correctness of-Held : Justified-However, no interest would be 
payable for the period for which development/construction work was 
prevented by the stay order-Furthermore, the manner in which the 
Development Authority dealt with public interest deprecated-Development 
Authority being State is duty bound to act for public interest overlooking 
D private interest-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 12. 
Respondent-Development Authority floated a Scheme for allot-
ment of housing plots. Appellant applied for a plot and deposited the 
final payment. With regard to Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2005, the plot 
could not be allotted as the Scheme was cancelled and new Scheme was 
E 
floated. With regard to Civil Appeal No. 549 of 2003 possession of the 
plot could not be delivered to the allottee because the development/ 
construction work was prevented by the stay order granted by High 
Court. Appellant filed complaint and the District Forum, State Commis-
sion and National Commission directed refund of the amount with 18% 
F 
interest per annum. Hence the present appeals and the contempt peti-
tion. 
Dismissing the appeals and the Contempt Petition, the Court 
HELD : I.I. The grant of interest @18% per annum by way of 
G damages and compensation on the refunded amount for non-allotment 
of plot of land is justified in both the appeals. However, in Civil Appeal 
No. 549 of 2003, no interest would b1.; payable for the period when the 
development/construction work was prevented by the stay order and as 
such the authority could not deliver possession to anybody. 
H 
(772-E, G; 773-A, BJ 
768 
-
B.P. SHARMA v. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [H.K. SEMA, l.l 769 
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, [2004) 5 SCC 65, A 
relied on. 
1.2. The manner in which the statutory Authority-Development 
Authority dealt with the public interest is deprecated. The statutory 
authority, likeGhaziabad Development Authority, being the State within B 
the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution, is duty bound to act in a 
manner, which would benefit the public interest, overlooking the private 
interest. It is trite law that when the private interest is pitted against the 
P"blic interest, the later must prevail over the former. Furthermore, in 
future such instances would be examined on their own merits. [773-C, DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 
2005. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.2002 of the National Con-
sumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 1460 of D 
2000. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 549/2003 and C.P.(C) No. 614/2004 in C.A. No. 549 of2003. 
S.C. Paul, Manoj Kulshrestha, O.P. Saxena, Ms. Roopa Paul, Sudhir 
Kumar and Ms. Rekha Pandey, Advs., for the Appellant. 
Vijay Hansaria, Ms. Reena Singh, Ms. Bhakti Pasrija and T. Mahipal 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H.K. SEMA, J.: Civil Appeal arising out ofSLP(C) 22736 o/2002. 
Leave granted. 
The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 26.4.2002 passed by 
the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (in short 'the 
Commission') in Revision Petition No. 1460 of 2000. 
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent authority, namely the Ghaziabad Development Au-
thority, floated a Scheme called Karpoori Puram Scheme for allotment of 
housing plots under the Self Financing Scheme. Pursuant thereto, the ap-
pellant applied for a plot of land measuring an area of90 sq. mtrs. This was 
sometime in the month of July, 1991. On 30th July, 1994, the appellant 
B deposited a sum of Rs. 96,948 as total and final payment (i.e. Rs. 81,020 
as actual cost and Rs. 15,948 as interest on delayed payment). The allotment 
of the plot was due sometime in 1997. However, the land in question could 
not be allotted to the appellant on the ground that the Karpoori Puram 
Scheme had been cancelled and a new scheme had been floated by the name 
c of Swam Jayanti Puram. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed complaint 
to the District Forum, St
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.