The Government of Uttar Pradesh selected an entity named “Uttam steel and associates” for development of a township namely Sushant Megapolis comprising of flats and plots in greater Noida. The consortium member formed an SVP under the name of “Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd.” which is the Opposite party. The detailed project reports have been approved by the Nodal Agency and as a result an agreement was executed between the consortium or the developer company and the Noda Agency. Invitation of applications for the allotment of the plots and flats were proposed and large number of persons including the complainants booked the residential plots and flats. The agreement does not mention any time for the delivery of the possession but as per the complaints it was verbally told to the allottees that the possession of the same will be delivered to them within the time period of 36 months from the execution of the agreement. According to the complainants, no development was made on the location and the possession of the same was also not offered to them.

On the above facts the complaints approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the authority passed the order granting permission to include the allottees to join the complaint through a public notice published in two newspapers.

The opposite party objected that the complaint is time barred and filed an affidavit which included the following points

  1. Due to farmer protest, they are unable to acquire the land as per the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court in land acquisition cases.
  2.  As per the agreement between the parties, the lay-out and the location of the project could be changed due to unavoidable circumstances and allottees are required to accept the same.
  3. The opposite party is in the process to settle with the other allottees.
  4. There are certain parcels of land which are required to be purchased by the government.
  5. The project was delayed due to the court orders and farmer agitation
  6. Certain land owners had not sold their lands.

The opposite party failed to develop and offer the possession of the flats or plots to the allottees so they have recurrent cause of action and there is no such contention that the complaint is time barred.
As for the circumstantial change in the location, no such reason has been disclosed and the lay-outs of the project have already been approved.

On the account of farmers protest, a letter was sent to all the allottees by the opposite parties which stated that the opposite party has already purchased all the land from the farmers and the owners with their consent and there is no dispute on the land and the project. Further, the project is not affected by the recent ruling given by the High court of Allahabad and the Supreme Court and the project is free from all complexities and illegalities. In the letter, it was further stated that there is no dispute between the developer and the farmers.

It could be expressed from the agreement that the project was a large project. There could be parcels of lands which may require acquisition by state government but as soon as the developers advertised it is for them to purchase those parcels and ensured that the same were acquired by the State Government. So the delay in possession due to non- acquisition of land cannot be accepted.

Though there is no specific time period mentioned in the agreement it does not indicate that the developer can take as much time as he wants. In such case, the developer must handover the possession within reasonable period of time. In this case, flats and plots owners made out deficiency of services on the part of the developers so the buyers are fully entitled to seek refund from the developers along with the compensation.

The authority holds that the buyers cannot wait for indefinite period to get the possession. The authority further holds that due to the running pandemic they would press the refund of the principal amount paid by the allottees along with compensation @8% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund and cost of litigation fee Rs. 50,000/- within the period of three months.