VIJAY JYOTI HOUSING PVT LTD Vs. L D MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we propose to dispose of 57 identical appeals raising common questions of law and fact.

(2.) District Forum-1 by its order dated 24.10.1997 substantially allowed 57 separate complaints which had been clubbed together for the sake of convenience and the leading judgment was recorded in L. D. Mittal V/s. Vijay Jyoti Housing (P) Ltd. case No.2239/1994. The opposite parties were M/s. Vljay Jyoti Housing (P) Ltd. , opposite party No.1, Mr. Prem Chand Jain, Managing Director, Mr. Navin Kumar Jain and Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, Directors of the above mentioned Private Limited Company. The case of the complainants was that in March, 1989 the opposite parties advertised in the daily Hindustan Times regarding availability of residential plots in a colony called Naina Enclave being developed by the opposite party situated on G. T. Karnal Road near HSIDC Complex Kundli, District Sonepat in the State of Haryana. According to the advertisement which was followed by hand-bills etc. the colony was to comprise of developed plots for residential purposes. The complainants booked plots in the said colony and paid the price thereof. It was, however, found that the colony was not a developed one. It had not been approved by the Authorities under the provisions of the Haryana Restrictions on (Development and Regulation of) Colonies Act, 1971. However, the opposite party executed sale deeds. Quite a few of which were got registered at the expense of the plot buyers. In several cases possession of undeveloped land was delivered to the plot buyers. The complainants, however, discovered that the opposite party had not obtained approval of the concerned Authorities under the aforesaid Act which places an embargo on the development of a "colony" in the State of Haryana and in the absence of such approval of the plots could not be constructed upon for residential houses. Further development was a notification dated 19.6.1992 u/sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Haryana for acquiring chunk of land including the land covered by the so called Naina Enclave. This was followed by a notification u/sec.6 of the said Act dated 16/17.6.1993. The complainants approached the District Forum for refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite party, further amount spent by them on stamp duty and registration besides amounts spent by some of them on constructing the boundary wall and the installing hand-pump etc. The complaints were resisted. The pleas raised by the opposite parties were that the complaints were barred by limitation; that the Consumer Forum, Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction and that the complaints were bad for mis-joinder, in that Vinod Kumar Gupta, Director had resigned as a Director of the Company in November, 1989 and thereafter he had no concern with the said company. It was further pleaded that the opposite parry was not responsible for the acquisition of the land by the State. According to the opposite party, the land was entered as 'abidi land' in the Revenue record and it was sold as such and there was no representation made that the land had been approved by the concerned Authorities as a colony under the Haryana Restrictions on (Development and Regulation of) Colonies Act, 1971.

(3.) The District Forum rejected the various contentions raised by the opposite party and directed the opposite parties to pay the various amounts spent by the complainants alongwith 15% interest from the date of payment of each instalment till realisation besides costs amounting to Rs.1,000/- in each case.