RAJ B LAL Vs. ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
LAWS(UPCDRC)-2007-1-1
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 04,2007

Raj B Lal Appellant
VERSUS
ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) DR . Raj B. Lal has come up with this complaint against Ansal Housing & Construction Limited. The only dispute raised is about the demand of Rs. 1,18,947.55 which was raised by the opposite party through its registered notice dated 22.6.1996. According to the complainant the said notice is illegal and the demand raised is also illegal, hence the complaint. Mr. M.S. Kotwal, learned Counsel for the complainant has been heard at length in support of this complaint.
(2.) ANSAL Housing and Constructions Limited by the notice dated 22.6.1996 have put in through the Clause c thereon the cost of extra land (187.30 sq. mtr.) at Rs. 72,859.17. Mr. A.K. Chaubey, learned Counsel for Ansal Housing and Constructions Limited vehemently argued that the cost of extra land has been fixed only at the rate on which the main land was priced. He, therefore, contends that subject to the judgment on the other demands made, no alteration is required in the demand for the extra land because it is on the same price on which the parent land had allotted.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we find merit in the demand as far as the extra land is concerned which has to be paid at the rate on which the parent area was allotted and price has already been paid by the complainant. Having done so, the complainant is stopped from his claim that reduced rate of Rs. 341 per sq mtr. should be allowed on the extra land. Mr. Chaubey is again right in the argument that if he does not take the land on the old rate applied on his parent land, he is at liberty to give up its possession. Coming to the other demands raised through the said notice dated 22.6.1996, it is shown that Rs. 15,560 said to be outstanding instalments have already been paid by the complainant vide receipt dated 24.2.1997. This demand, therefore, goes. Therefore, the amount demanded through Clauses (d), (e), (f) and (g) i.e. additional external development charges, security deposit against future maintenance charges, sewer connection charges and water connection charges have also to be paid by the complainant. Insofar as alleged claim of "interest to be calculated" as is mentioned in Clause (b) of the demand notice dated 22.6.1996 is concerned the opposite parties are keeping with them more than the sum of Rs. 3.5 lacs for several years, hence the opposite party disentitled itself to claim any other interest from the complainant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.