9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the complainant is that the possession of the allotted unit has not been` offered to him and even the construction is not complete despite he having paid Rs. 1,08,16,881/- to the opposite party. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the amount along with compensation etc. 2. The opposite party has filed its written version contesting the complaint primarily on the grounds which have already been rejected by this Commission in other consumer complaints. It is interalia sated in the written version filed by the opposite party that several writ petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by farmers challenging acquisition of land which had been allotted to developers. The said petitions were finally decided by Allahabad High Court on 21.10.2011 in Writ Petition No.37443 of 2011 - Gajraj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors. Some of the farmers aggrieved by the said order passed by the Allahabad High Court, filed several Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be decided on 14.5.2015. It is also alleged that there was unrest amongst the farmers who had started Dharans in front of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be compensated for the delay in terms of the allotment letter. It is also alleged in the written version filed by the opposite party that the complainants are defaulter in making payment, they having paid only Rs. 53,47,139/- as against the total cost of Rs. 1,38,63,636/-. It is also alleged that the delay in possession was caused on account of stay order passed by the NGT regarding ground water extraction for construction purposes. 7. As far as delay on account of the NGT orders is concerned, the plea was considered by this Commission in CC/40/2017 Sanjay Kumar Chowdhary Vs. Supertech Limited decided on 01.3.2018 and the following view was taken: "6. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the NGT had prohibited construction activities within a radius of 10 Kms. from Okhla Birds Sanctuary vide its letter dated August 14, 2013 passed in OA No. 158 of 2013. I have perused the said order. The aforesaid aspect came to be considered by this Commission in Shri Pradeep Narula & Anr. Vs. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. Anr. in CC 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after, Ministry of Environment & Forests was to refer the same to the standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life, which was to verify the correctness of the statement made by the project proponent. The order passed by the aforesaid Board was to indicate whether the project should be permitted or not. It was made clear that the building construction within 10 kms radius of Okhla Bird Sanctuary or within distance of Eco-Sensitive Zone to be prescribed by Ministry of Environment & Forests shall be subject to decision of National Board for Wild Life and till clearance from the said Board, the Authority shall not issue completion certificate to the project. Thus, in the aforesaid order dated 28.10.2013, the National Green Tribunal did not stay further construction of the projects where requisite environmental clearance had been obtained, and only completion certificate was withheld till clearance from the National Board for Wild Life. The order of the Tribunal to the extent the issue of completion certificate was withheld till the clearance from NBWL could not have contributed to the delay in offering possession to the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble only to construction activities which were going on without environmental clearance or against the provisions of the environmental clearance. Therefore, vide order dated 28.10.2013, NGT issued several directions but did not stop construction in the projects which had been started after obtaining the requisite environment clearance and in which there was no violation of the conditions, subject to which the said clearance had been granted. If the opposite party had started the construction, without obtaining the requisite environmental clearance or in contravention of the terms of the said clearance, it is only itself to blame for being stopped from raising further construction in terms of the order of the NGT dated 17.9.2013. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention that the construction was delayed partly on account of the above referred orders passed by the NGT." 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party also submits that the environmental clearance had been suspended by the NGT vide its order dated 28.10.2013. I however, find that the NGT had not stayed the construction work in respect of the project wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on account of such cancellation affecting future commitments, holding cost of unit, manpower cost, reduced cash flow, project re-scheduling, increase in cost of project etc. and the balance, if any, shall be refunded without any interest in the following manner:- a) The refundable amount, after deduction as explained above shall be paid to the Allottee/s not before expiry of a period of three months and not later than six months from the date on which the Company receives the cancellation application/affidavit and proper documents from the Allottee/s for such cancellation. b) No interest shall be payable by the company for the said period of six months. c) If the Company makes any default in payment of refunds after the expiry of said period of six months, then the Allottee/s shall be entitled to interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum on the amount of money to be refunded. 8. In my opinion, the aforesaid clause would apply to a case where the allottee, for his own reasons, seeks cancellation of the allotment and does not apply to a case where he is forced to seek cancellation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
