JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The present complaint has been filed by four complainants. Mr. Anil K. Jain – Complainant No. 2 is the father of Mr. Agam Jain and Mr. Sanyam Jain- Complainants No. 3 & 4. Complainants No. 3 & 4 are currently out of India for study and livelihood. Complainant No. 2 is their power of attorney. Copies of their respective power of attorneys are annexed as Annexure C-1 (Colly). All the four complainants are allottees of plots in the residential scheme, prelaunched by the OP “Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Residential Plot Scheme 2009 (1)”. The copy of the Allotment-cum-allocation letters in the names of complainants No. 1 & 2 are annexed as Annexure C-3 (Colly). The complainants No. 3 & 4 got allotment by way of transfer from previous allottees in the year 2010, Annexure C-4 (Colly). There were two payment plans known as “Payment Plan-I” and “Payment Plan -2”. As per payment Plan No. 1, allottees were under obligation to pay 50% of the total premium upfront and the remainder in 16 half yearly instalments alongwith 12% interest. As per Payment Plan No. 2, allottees were under obligation to pay 30% of the total premium upfront and the remainder in 16 half yearly instalments alongwith 12% interest. Complainant No. 1 opted for payment plan No. 1. Others opted for payment Plan No. 2. 2. According to the scheme, the allottees were to get the possession upon payment of 75% of the premium or after 04 years from the date of issue of this letter, whichever is later. Other charges were to be paid at the time of execution of lease deed by the allottees. The installments in terms of the above mentioned payment plans also included therein a sum of Rs.1000/- as “one time web based portal charges” which was also paid. 3. The land was to be acquired from the farmers. The farmers filed a number of Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. A list of the said Writ Petitions has been placed on the record, which is annexed as Annexure C-5. The action of acquisition is still pending. In December 2013, the OP provided the status of stay of the land to the allottees. Copies of online prints showing status of stay of the Complainants are annexed as Annexure C-6 (Colly). The total plots in the above said scheme are approximately 21000. Out of which, stay operates on approximately 12000 plots. 4. Although, the OP does not have the possession of the plot, yet, it is still raising the demand for payment of instalments of the payment plans. It also sent the defaulter notice, which has been annexed as Annexure-C-7. It still continues to charge the interest @ 12% p.a. from the allottees. 5. The allottees have made 75% payment of the base premium amount and 4 years have already elapsed since the allotment of the aforesaid plots and yet the OP is not in a position to allot plot to its respective allottees. A chart showing the payment reveals the present status:-

19. no.

•

•

To be paid with (Areax4750) interest

Payment Made (in INR)

•

1.

Atul Maheshwari

0.

0.

0.

87.

2.

Anil K Jain

0.

0.

0.

84.

3.

Agam Jain

0.

0.

0.

84.

4.

Sanyam Jain

0.

0.

0.

84.

Copies of the receipts of payments are annexed as Annexure C-8 (colly) 6. The unjust enrichment of the OP at this account alone appears to be Rs.2,10,00,000/- only. Again, no URL exists. The OP has even called forth the allottees and execute the agreement to lease registered and pay stamp duty on the same. Copy of letter dated 24.09.2010 sent to the complainants is placed on record as Annexure C-10. Although, acquisition is still in the air, yet, its circle rates are going increasing. Ultimately, this complaint was filed with the following prayers:1. “Hold the Opposite Party/YEIDA guilty of Unfair Trade Practices as well as deficient services. 2. Direct the Opposite Party to give possession of plots/alternate plots to the allottees. 3. Direct the Opposite Party to deduct the already collected interest from remainder payments towards allotment to allottees. 4. Direct the OP to give interest to the allottees on the payments collected till now from the allottees till date. 5. Direct the Opposite Party to pay compensatory damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- qua each allotment. 6. Direct the Opposite Party to not to force execution of any lease deed without being in possession of the land. 7. Direct the Opposite Party to fulfil all its obligations towards the Allottees in terms of the allotment letter as well as the Residential Scheme. 8. Direct the Opposite Party to cancel all defaulter notices sent to the allottees during the pendency of stay orders. 9. Such other relief that this Hon’ble Commission may deem appropriate in the interest of justice”. 7. The complaint case was admitted on 19.12.2013. From the order sheet dated 13.11.2014, it is transpired that the OP had failed to file the written statement, which was delayed by eight months. The delay was condoned subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- while following the latest view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Kolte Patil Dev. Ltd. Vs. Bhupendra Bhandari” in Civil Appeal No. 8166 of 2014, decided by the Apex Court on 08.10.2014, wherein there was delay of six months. The case was adjourned to 14.09.2015. On 14.09.2015 neither the costs were paid nor anybody appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party. The case was fixed for complainants’ evidence on 14.10.2015. On 14.10.2015 arguments were heard and the case was reserved for orders. 8. Since the OP has not paid the costs, therefore, the defence of the OP will not be considered. It also appears that the permission U/s 12 (i) (c) was not taken. The complaint was signed by Mr. Atul Maheshwari and Mr. Anil K. Jain for himself and for his two sons. Consequently, the requirements of Section 12 (i) (c ) and 13 (vi) and Order 1, Rule 8 stands complied with. Consequently, the permission to pursue the case is hereby granted. 9. The next question is whether the Complainants No. 2, 3 and 4 should be allowed to have three flats. The case of Mr. Atul Mahreshwari is wee bit different. It must be borne in mind that Mr. Anil K. Jain, Mr. Agam Jain and Mr. Sanyam Jain are majors and they have got the booking in their own original names. There is no inkling that they have obtained the allotment for selling it. Consequently, it is safely assumed that they are consumers in their individual capacity, separately. The above said documents and the affidavit of the complainant proves the case of the complainants. The OP is guilty of unfair trade practice, it should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land. It is common knowledge that after contesting the case before the District/Additional District Judge, the farmers always go to the Hon’ble High Court and then to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is not understandable why the Government agency has made an attempt to lead the gullible people up the garden path. The story does not stop here. Unashamedly, the OP is taking the further instalments, issuing default notice and asking the consumers to deposit stamp duty without acquiring the possession. They have no courtesy to appear before this Commission. Is it the service to the Public? Is it the so called “VIKAS”? 10.

Consequently, we hereby direct that the possession of the plot be given to the complainants, within one year.

OR If it is not possible, alternative plots be given to the allottess, as per their choice; OR If these things are not possible, the amount be paid back to the complainants with interest @ 12% and that too, if the complainants so desire. The complainants may string alongwith this scheme but would not be entitled to any other relief except the one granted herein with. 11. The OP shall not take the interest for remainder payments towards allotment to allottees, except for four years till the complainants are put in possession of plots. The OP is debarred from sending the defaulter notices or forcing the allottees to execute lease deed without having possession of the land. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances, there will be no order as to compensation or costs.