Back
2009(3) CPR 121 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
Madhya Pradesh Housing
Board —Petitioner
versus
Rajesh Mandioi —Respondent
Revision Petition No.992 of 2005 with Revision Petition No.993 of 2005 with Revision Petition No.994 of 2005
Decided on 16-3-2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent (In R.P. No.992/2005): In-Person.
For the Respondent (In R.P. Nos.993 and 994/2005): Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
Any advertisement issued in violation of provisions of statute/notification of State Government would be void ab initio.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b)—Advertisement issued by petitioner board for sale of junior HIG Hhouses under Self Financing Scheme—Scheme provided that purchaser would be required to get sale deed registered of plot only and not that of super structure—Grievance of complainants that construction of houses by petitioner board was sub-standard and defective—Due to this complainants had to get registered sale deed executed for super structure as well and pay stamp duty and registration fee—Admittedly earlier under some notification of state government execution of sale deed and registration thereof in respect of super structure of houses allotted under Self Financing Scheme was exempted—Case of complainant that by the time delivery of houses was made to them, said notification was withdrawn as a result of which they were required to pay registration fee and stamp duty—Order passed by State Commission directing petitioner board to pay to respondent complainants amount required to be spent by them in purchase of stamp paper and registration fee—Revision petition—No doubt in advertisement petitioner housing board had given assurance to prospective buyers that they would be required to pay registration fee and stamp duty on purchase of value of plot only and not of super structure built on plot—However this could operate as estopple against petitioner from charging registration fee and stamp duty—This was because board could not have extended any promise/assurance contrary to provisions of statute or statutory notification issued by State Government—Impugned Order of State Commission set aside—Revision petitions disposed of. (Paras 7 to 12)
Ashok Bhan, President—Madhya Pradesh Housing Board-petitioner herein, which was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) has filed the present Revision Petition.
2. This Order shall dispose of the above noted three Revision Petitions.
3. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has disposed of a number of Appeals filed by the petitioner-Housing Board but since we are concerned with only three Revision Petitions, we shall be referring to the facts giving rise to these Revision Petitions only.
4. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:-
In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Mandioi, Shri S.D. Gupta and Ajay Singh, respondents in these Revision Petitions, filed applications for purchase of Junior HIG House in Sector-C, Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal under Self Financing Scheme. The scheme provided that the purchaser would be required to get the sale deed registered of the plot only and not that of the super structure. The common grievance of these complainants was regarding sub-standard and defective construction of the houses by the petitioner-Housing Board and further deficiency of the Housing Board in the matter of delay in construction and delivery of houses which made these complainants to get the registered sale deed executed for the super structure as well and pay stamp duty and registration fee. Apparently, earlier under some notification of the State Government, execution of the sale deed and registration thereof in respect of super structure of the houses allotted under the self financing scheme was exempted. According to the complainant, by the time the delivery of houses was made to them, the said notification was withdrawn as a result of which they were required to pay the registration fee and the stamp duty on the land value of the plot as well as the super structure constructed thereon. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants.
5. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners as well as the Housing Board filed Appeals before the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). By the impugned Order, the State Commission has reduced the compensation for the sub-standard and defective construction of houses to Rs.20,000/-. Further, it was held that it was not a case of unfair trade practice but of late construction and delivery of houses, which deprived the respondent allottees of the benefit of exemption granted earlier by the State Government. Accordingly, it was held that ends of justice would be served by requiring the petitioner-Housing Board to pay to the respondent/complainants, the amount required to be spent by them in purchase of stamp paper and the registration fee.
6. These Revision Petitions came up for hearing before a Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, as he then was, on 13.05.2005. The following Order reads as under:-
“Considering the reasons recorded in para 5 of the Order of the State Commission, in our view, the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference. If officers of the Housing Board are inefficient or concerned engineers have committed mistakes in supervising the work, it would be open to the Housing Board to recover the amount awarded by the District Forum/State Commission from the concerned officers. This would be in conformity with the laid down by the apex court in M.K. Gupta v. Lucknow Development Authority.1 Impugned Order does not call for any interference.
However, with regard to the registration charges and stamp duty only, issue notice to the respondent returnable on 17.8.2005.”
7. In view of the above Order, the Revision Petition is confined only to the question of registration charges and stamp duty only. It is not in dispute b
