Supreme Court of India
ESTATE MANAGER, M.P. HOUSING BOARDversusRAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 544
- Decided
- 16 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The additional charges for corner and best‑location plots were authorized by the Board’s terms and conditions of registration, so the National Commission’s order was set aside and the State Commission’s order upheld.
Summary
The respondents, allottees of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, challenged the Board’s demand of an extra 10% charge for corner plots and 5% for best‑location plots, arguing that the plots were allotted by lottery and such levies were unsustainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1985. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ruled in favour of the allottees, but the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reversed that decision, holding that the charges were authorized by the Board’s advertisement and registration terms. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the State Commission’s order, deeming the extra charges invalid. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the Board’s advertisement, allotment letter, and the 1978 manual, finding that the additional charges were expressly provided for in the terms of registration and therefore permissible. Consequently, the Court set aside the National Commission’s order, upheld the State Commission’s decision, and dismissed the direction to levy interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board could levy additional charges of 10% for corner plots and 5% for best‑location plots despite the allotment being made by lottery.
- Whether such additional charges are sustainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1985.
- Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission erred in setting aside the State Commission’s order upholding the charges.
- Whether the direction to levy interest on the disputed amounts is maintainable.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Housing allotmentLotteryAdditional chargesCorner plotBest location plotConsumer Protection ActConsumer disputeInterest
Judgment
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 434
~
A ESTATE MANAGER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD
v.
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
(Civil Appeal No.2599 of 2009)
APRIL 16, 2009
8
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.] ~
URBAN DEVELOPMENT:
c
Housing - Allotment of plots - Through lottery -.
Additional charges for corner plot and for best location plot -
Held: Valid - The advertisement specifically mentioned for
additional charges - The view of National Consumer Disputes
D Redressal Commission and the District Forum holding the
additional charges unsustainable is set aside and that of the •
State Commission upholding the extra charges is maintained
- Consumer Protection Act, 1985.
The respondents-allottees filed complaints before the
E District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum contending
that the apllellant-Board could not charge 10% extra
-
amount for a corner plot and 5% for best location plot,
as the allotment of pfots was based on lottery. The
District Forum held in favour of the allottees, but the State '
F Commission upheld the demand. However, the National
Commission having set aside the demand for extra
charges, the Board filed the appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
G HELD: The demand was authorized in terms and
conditions of registration of allotment. It has been
specifically mentioned in the advertisement that
registration of the house shall be determined by the
lottery and the terms and conditions of registration and
H 434
..,#
ESTATE MANAGER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD v. 435
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
--.-- j
allotment specifically provided for additional charges. A
That being so, the view taken by the National
Commission cannot be sustained, and is set aside. The
directjon for levy of interest also cannot be maintained
and is set aside. The order passed by the State
Commission is maintained. [Para 5 and 6] [437-A-B, E-F] B
CIVIL APPEL.LATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
.I, 2599 of 2009 .
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.07.2004 of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New c
Delhi in R.P. No. 303 of 2004.
WITH
C.A. No. 2600 of 2009.
D
. + C.A. No. 2601 of 2b09.
C.A. No. 2602 of 2009.
C.A. No. 2603 of 2009.
E
C.A. No. 2604 of 2009.
S.K. Dubey, B.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay and Yogesh
>t
Tiwari for the Appellant(s).
"
F
A.K. Chitale, Niraj Sharma, Vikrant Singh Bais and
Sumeet Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the G
parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by
H
~
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
~
A the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in
short the 'National Commission'). By the impugned order the
National Commission set aside the order passed by the
Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (in short the 'State Commission') The respondents
B had filed complaints before the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Indore (in short the 'District Forum') making
a grievance that the present appellant Board cannot charge
10% extra charge for a corner plot and 5% extra charge for best -f
location plot. Accor9ing to the complainant these amounts are
c not payable as the appellant Board had accepted the amounts
payable without such charges. The District Forum accepted the
complaints and directed that the charges levied and demanded
cannot be collected. Questioning the correctness of the orders
passed by the District Forum the State Commission was moved
by way of appeal by the present appellant. The appeal was
D
allowed. It was specifically noted that the District Forum had
+ ...
not kept in view the fact that there is a provision in the manual
issued by the Board in the year 1978 about such levy. The State
Forum also referred to various documents like the Board's
advertisement relating to registration for Higher Income Group
E Houses, Indore. The order of District Forum was set aside by
the State Forum. Questioning the correctness of the orders
passed by the State Commission revision petitions were filed
before the National Commission which was allowed by the
~ ~
impugned order.
F
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Board submitted that
the National Commission did not take note of various relevant
documents like the advertisement relating to registration for
Higher Income Group Houses, letter of allotment and the terms
G and conditions of registration and allotment. It was also pointed
out that in the allotment letter the demand was made specifically
for 10% for corner plot charges and 5% for best location plots.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the District Forum and National Commission
H took note of the fact that since the house was allotted after draw
ESTATE MANAGER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD v. 437
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~
of lots in the lottery, there is no question of the Board making A
a demand in the manner done.
5. Various documents referred to by learned counsel for
the appellant Board leaves no manner of doubt that the demand
was authorised in terms and conditions of registration of
B
allotment which has been specifically indicated as follows:
As per the prevailing Rules of the Board, on house
situated in the corner a price of 10% and house situated
on the main road a separate price of 5% shall have to be
given. In addition to the average land of the house the price c
of more land shall be taken separately which will be
informed as per the actual map certificate at the time of
allotment of the house. As per rules these rate and other
charges shall be payable separately.
D
6. The Nationa! Commission was of the view that because
by sheer chance of luck the draw of plot in the lottery the plot
was allotted the principle relating to charging the additional
amounts for th.e best location or corner plot cannot be
applicable. This conclusion is contrary to the advertisement
E
made for registration of the house. It has been specifically
mentioned therein that the registration of the house shall be
determined by the lottery and the terms and conditions of
registration and allotment specifically provided for additional
• • charges.· That being so, the view taken by the National
F
Commission cannot be sustained and is set aside. In other
words, the order passed by the State Commission is
maintained while those of the District Forum and the National
Commission get nullified.
The appeal is allowed. G
SLP(C) No. 2557/2005, 2625/2005, 2702/2005, 2775/2005,
2785/2005:
Leave granted.
H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No...... ./2009
@ SLP(C) No. 20606/2004 these appeals deserve to be
allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission so
far as it relates to nullification of charges for the corner plot and
the best location plots in each case is set aside. Additionally,
B on the facts of the case the direction for levy of interest cannot
be maintained and the interest directed to be paid stand set
aside.
The appeals are allowed.
C R.P. Appeals allowed.
..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Housing allotment"Sign in to search