As per case facts, the Petitioner (GLADA) advertised a residential plot scheme. The Respondent (complainant) acquired a plot by transfer and made substantial payments. Despite the allotment letter stipulating possession ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.108
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.09.2025
Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) and another
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH
NALWA
Present: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
*****
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioners (GLADA) have
challenged the order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCDRC’) in First Appeal No.2171 of 2018
and the order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘SCDRC’) in Consumer Complaint No.883 of 2017, whereby,
the complaint filed by respondent No.3-complainant was partly allowed
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 2
and was held entitled for grant of refund of deposited amount and transfer
fee along with interest and compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-Greater
Ludhiana Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
‘GLADA’) advertised a Scheme in the year 2012 for the purpose of
allotment of 601 residential plots at Sugar Mill Site, Jagraon. Pursuant to
abovesaid Scheme, Mrs. Kanta wife of Sh. Gulshan Kumar applied for
allotment of one plot measuring 500 sq. yard for a total tentative price of
Rs.42,50,000/-. Being successful in the draw of lots held on 10.01.2013,
Letter of Intent dated 28.02.2013 was issued by the petitioners (GLADA)
in respect of the plot bearing No.3 in the abovesaid Scheme, after
receiving 25% amount of total tentative price of the plot i.e.
Rs.10,62,500/-. Allotment letter dated 29.08.2015 was also issued to Mrs.
Kanta. Respondent No.3-complainant purchased the abovesaid plot from
Mrs. Kanta (original allottee) by way of transfer with the prior permission
of the petitioners (GLADA). Re-allotment letter was issued in favour of
respondent No.3-complainant on 21.12.2015 in respect of the said plot
with a condition that respondent No.3-complainant would abide by all the
conditions of allotment letter, Punjab Urban Estate (Development &
Regulations) Act, 1964, Regional and Town Planning and Development
Act, 1955 and the Rules/ Regulations framed therein. Respondent No.3-
complainant paid an amount of Rs.9,13,750/- to the petitioners (GLADA)
on 01.09.2016. He again paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 3
(GLADA) on 22.12.2016 and thereafter, was continuously paying the
installments on time without any default. Respondent No.3-complainant
in all, had paid a sum of Rs.29,76,250/- towards the price of plot in
question. The plot in question was to be handed over to the allottee
within 90 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter, however, the
same had not been delivered to respondent No.3-complainant even after
expiry of two years. Respondent No.3-complainant approached the
petitioners (GLADA) several times for requesting to hand over the due
possession of the plot but the petitioners (GLADA) failed to do so.
3. Aggrieved against the action of the petitioners (GLADA) in
not handing over the possession of the plot in question to respondent
No.3-complainant, a complaint was filed by respondent No.3-complainant
under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(hereinafter referred as ‘the CP Act’) before respondent No.2 wherein,
direction was sought for refund of the amount of Rs.29,76,250/- deposited
by respondent No.3-complainant against the price of the plot along with
interest @ 12% per annum. It was also prayed in the abovesaid complaint
for a direction to the petitioners (GLADA) to refund an amount of
Rs.1,08,750/- deposited by respondent No.3-complainant as transfer fee
along with the interest @ 12% per annum. Apart from this, it was further
prayed for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for harassment,
inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss suffered by respondent
No.3-complainant along with Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses. Further,
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 4
the case set-up by respondent No.3-complainant was that in spite of the
fact that he had deposited substantial amount, but the petitioners
(GLADA) had not handed over the possession of the plot in question to
respondent No.3-complainant. It was his case that allotment letter was
issued on 29.08.2015, the possession had to be given within 90 days from
the date of issuance of abovesaid allotment letter. It was also the case of
respondent No.3-complainant that even after expiry of two years,
possession of the plot had not been handed over to respondent No.3-
complainant. As such, there was a deficiency in service on the part of the
petitioners (GLADA) and respondent No.3-complainant was entitled for
refund of the amount deposited by him and transfer fee along with interest
and compensation.
4. Upon notice, the petitioners (GLADA) duly filed reply in the
abovesaid complaint. It was the case of the petitioners (GLADA) that
infact, respondent No.3-complainant had purchased the plot only for
speculative purpose to make some easy money. However, as the price of
the plot in question did not increase, as such, respondent No.3-
complainant had started finding faults in the Scheme only to wriggle out
of it by incurring least loss to him. It was also the case of the petitioners
(GLADA) that infact, the original allottee nor respondent No.3-
complainant had ever approached the petitioners (GLADA) for taking
over the possession not only within 90 days from the date of issuance of
allotment letter, but even till date of filing of the reply, respondent No.3-
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 5
complainant had not taken the possession of the plot. It was the case of
the petitioners (GLADA) that respondent No.3-complainant had not taken
the possession of the plot within 90 days from the date of issuance of the
allotment letter, as such, it would be deemed to have been handed over to
respondent No.3-complainant on the expiry of the abovesaid period. It
was also pleaded by the petitioners (GLADA) that the plots were ready
for possession on 30.09.2015 onwards. The site had enough approach to
carry the building material etc. and respondent No.3-complainant was
only trying to plead the lack of connectivity with the National Highway as
a lame excuse. It was also pleaded by the petitioners (GLADA) that No
Objection Certificate (NOC) for access to the National Highway had been
applied by the Executive Engineer, Central Works Division No.1, P.W.D
(B&R), Ludhiana, which is a Government agency and not the petitioners
(GLADA) as projected by respondent No.3-complainant. As per the
report of construction wing, all the works stood completed on 30.09.2015
well before the deemed date of delivery of possession i.e. 29.11.2015, as
such, respondent No.3-complainant had no moral right to seek the refund
of amount as claimed by him.
5. The SCDRC after taking into consideration the facts of the
case and the evidence led by the parties passed the order dated 01.06.2018
(Annexure P-2), whereby, the complaint filed by respondent No.3-
complainant was partly allowed. Relevant extract of the directions issued
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 6
vide order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-2) by the SCDRC is reproduced
below:-
“i) to refund the amount of Rs.29,76,250/- to the
complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from the dates of different deposits till the date of actual payment;
ii) to refund the amount of Rs.1,08,750/- to the
complainant deposited by him as transfer fee along with interest
@ 12% per annum; and
iii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, for
harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss
suffered by him, including litigation expenses.
19. The opposite parties shall comply with these
directions within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order, failing which they shall be liable to
pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of order till the date of compliance.
20. The complaint could not be decided within the
statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.”
6. A perusal of the order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-2)
passed by SCDRC would show that Clause 4 of the allotment letter was
taking into consideration by the SCDRC and a finding was given that the
plot was never handed over to respondent No.3-complainant within 90
days from the date of issuance of allotment letter, in spite of the fact,
substantial amount was paid by respondent No.3-complainant, as such,
there was a deficiency in the service and respondent No.3-complainant
was entitled for refund of the amount deposited by him. A perusal of the
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 7
same would also show that as per the information obtained from the
Divisional Engineer (C-2), GLADA under RTI Act, 2005, it was apparent
that till 05.09.2017, the National Highway Authority had not given any
approval to the petitioners (GLADA) for approach road to be constructed
and connected to the National Highway. Reliance was also made on
Ex.C-8 to an effect that no sewerage connection was allotted by the
Authority to the petitioners in the project to be developed. It was also
held by the SCDRC that infact, no evidence was led by the petitioners
(GLADA) to show that possession of the plot in question was ever handed
over to respondent No.3-complainant within 90 days from the date of
issuance of the allotment letter. Relevant extract of the order dated
01.06.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by SCDRC is reproduced below:-
“15. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the
opposite parties that there is provision for deemed delivery of
possession to complainant, in case of failure of complainant to
take it, is concerned, we are afraid, there is nothing on the record
to substantiate it. Once complainant has paid substantial amount
towards sale consideration of the plot in question and as such,
they were duty bound to deliver the possession within 90 days
from the date of issue of allotment, because not only 25% of the
tentative amount but complainant has paid substantial amount
towards the price of the plot to the opposite parties. We find that
only obvious reason in non-delivery the possession by the
opposite parties to complainant is on account of non-development
of the project, which justifies the complainant to seek refund of the
deposited amounts with the opposite parties. Similar view has
been taken by the First Additional Bench of this Commission in
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 8
CC No.878 of 2017 (Rajwinder Kaur V. Punjab Urban Planning
& Development Authority and others).
16. So far as the documents appended by the opposite
parties Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/5 are
concerned, the same appear to have been prepared by the
opposite parties themselves for the purpose of this case only.
From the perusal of the same it is not clear that the
facilities/amenities as promised have been provided at the site.
No Completion Certificate/Partial Completion Certificate or
Occupancy Certificate has been placed on record by the opposite
parties. As stated above, the possession of the fully developed
plot was to be delivered upto 28.11.2015 and more than two years
have already lapsed but the possession has not been delivered in-
spite of payment of substantial amount towards the sale price of
the plot in question. The complainant cannot be made to wait for
delivery of possession of the plot for an indefinite period and once
the complainant had lost faith in the opposite parties with regard
to the development of the project and delivery of possession of the
plot in question, he was very much within his rights to withhold
further payments. It is now well settled that a consumer cannot be
compelled to take delivery of possession of the flat/plot/apartment
after the expiry of the stipulated date of delivery of possession of
the same as agreed between the parties.
17. The C.P. Act came into being in the year 1986. It is
the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from
exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be
overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainant
has made payment of substantial amount towards the price of the
plot in question to the opposite parties with the hope to get the
possession of the fully developed plot in a reasonable period. The
circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false
statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. development of
the plot and ultimate delivery of possession. The act and conduct
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 9
of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and
deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to
the complainant. Had the complainant not invested his money
with the opposite parties, he would have invested the same
elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also.
The complainant has suffered loss, as discussed above. The
opposite parties are under obligation to deliver the possession of
the plot/unit/flat within a reasonable period. The complainant
cannot be made to wait indefinitely to get possession of the plot.
It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be
commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and
reasonable and not arbitrary. The amount paid by the
complainant is a deposit held by the opposite parties in trust of
complainant and it should be used for the purpose of
developing/building the plots/flats. The opposite parties are
bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the
complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held
in catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
Hon’ble National Commission.”
7. Aggrieved against the order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-2)
passed by the SCDRC, the petitioners (GLADA) filed an appeal before
the NCDRC, New Delhi. The abovesaid appeal filed by the petitioners
(GLADA) was disposed of vide order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-1).
A perusal of the abovesaid order passed by the NCDRC would show that
the order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by SCDRC was
modified. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below:-
“i. The Appellant/Opposite party shall refund
Rs.29,76,250/- and Rs.1,08,750/- to the complainant with interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till its realization.
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 10
In case of default, the interest shall carry @ 12% per annum for
such extended period.
ii. The Appellant/opposite party shall pay Rs.10,000/-
to the complainant as costs.
iii. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards
harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss is set
aside.
20. The First Appeal No.2171 of 2018 is disposed of
accordingly.”
8. A perusal of the order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi would show that it has been held that
after paying substantial amount by respondent No.3-complainant, the
petitioners (GLADA) failed to deliver the possession of the plot in
question within 90 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter and
the non-delivery of possession constitutes deficiency in service. Relevant
extract of the order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
NCDRC is reproduced below:-
“15. While the OPs claimed deemed possession, there is
nothing on record to substantiate the same and, having paid
substantial amount as consideration, the OPs were bound to
deliver possession within 90 days from the date of issue of
allotment. Therefore, non-delivery of possession constitutes
deficiency in service. He cannot be made to wait indefinitely. It is
now well settled that a consumer cannot be compelled to take
delivery of possession of the unit after the expiry of the stipulated
date of delivery as agreed by the parties.
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 11
16. In view of the discussion above, I am of the
considered view that the State Commission order does not suffer
from any illegality or impropriety, except for quantum of
compensation awarded.”
9. Aggrieved against the order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-2)
passed by the SCDRC and the order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi, the petitioners have filed the present
writ petition.
10. The only argument raised by the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners (GLADA) is that as per Clause 4 of
the allotment letter, if the possession of the plot in question is not taken
by the allottee within a stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been
handed over on the expiry of the abovesaid period. It is the case of the
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners (GLADA) that as
respondent No.3.-complainant had not taken the possession within 90
days of the issuance of allotment letter, as such, respondent No.3-
complainant was not entitled for refund of any amount deposited by him
and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners
(GLADA). Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2812A of 1986 titled
as Bareilly Development Authority and another Vs. Ajay Pal Singh
and others, Law Finder Doc Id #89263 decided on 17.02.1989. No
other argument has been advanced.
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 12
11. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners (GLADA) and gone through the documents
available on the record.
12. A perusal of the facts of the present case would reveal that
the only issue arises for consideration is whether respondent No.3-
complainant was deemed to have been handed over the possession of the
plot in question on expiry of 90 days of issuance of the allotment letter.
In order to decide the abovesaid issue, it is relevant to reproduce Clause-4
of the allotment letter and the same is reproduced below:-
“4. POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP
i) Possession of plot shall be handed over to
allottee within 90 days of issue of allotment letter provided
25% of the tentative price has been paid. If possession is
not taken by the allottee within stipulated period, it shall be
deemed to have been handed over on the expiry of the said
period.
ii) The ownership of land continues to vest with
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY until full payment is made of all outstanding
dues in respect of said plot.
iii) Within 90 days of payment of entire money as
per (ii) above allottee shall be required to execute a deed of
conveyance in prescribed form and prescribed manner. The
expenses for registration and execution of conveyance deed
shall be borne by the allottee.
iv) The allottee shall have no right to transfer by
way of sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise, the Plot or any
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 13
other rights, title or interest in the said plot except with the
prior permission of Estate Officer, which may be granted
subject to payment of such fee/charges, as may be
determined from time to time.”
13. A perusal of Clause-4 (i) would show that possession of the
plot shall be handed over to the allottee within 90 days of issuance of
allotment letter provided 25% of the tentative price has been paid. If
possession is not been taken by the allottee within stipulated period, it
shall be deemed to have been handed over on the expiry of the abovesaid
period. Clause-4 (i) would show that at the first instance, the petitioners
(GLADA) had to hand over respondent No.3-complainant the possession
of the plot within 90 days of issuance of the allotment letter. In case,
respondent No.3-complainant did not take the possession of the plot, in
that case, it shall be deemed to have been handed over to respondent
No.3-complainant on expiry of the said period. A perusal of the facts of
the present case would show that no evidence has been led by the
petitioners (GLADA) to show that the plot in question was ever handed
over to respondent No.3-complainant within 90 days from the date of
issuance of allotment letter. The concept of deemed possession will apply
in terms of Clause-4 of the allotment letter only when the petitioners
(GLADA) had offered to hand over the possession to respondent No.3-
complainant within 90 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter.
14. It is also pertinent to mention here that the concept of deemed
possession is attracted only in circumstances where the builder or seller
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 14
has completed all essential development works, made all requisite
amenities and facilities functional and has expressed readiness and
willingness to hand over the possession of the residential plots or units to
the allottee or buyer. It is only when, despite such readiness on the part of
the builder/seller, the buyer himself deliberately fails or refuses to take
over the possession, the concept of deemed possession can be invoked. In
the present case, there is no material evidence on record led by the
petitioners (GLADA) to establish that respondent No.3-complainant was
unwilling to accept the possession of the plot, even if offered by the
petitioners (GLADA). It is not even the case of the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners (GLADA) that possession of the
other plots were handed over to any other allottee under the said Scheme.
Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the evidence led by the
parties, it is held that the petitioners (GLADA) never handed over the
possession of the plot in question within 90 days of issuance of allotment
letter. As such, there is a clear deficiency on the part of the petitioners
(GLADA).
15. Even otherwise, perusal of the facts of the present case and
the evidence led by the parties would show that there was no connection
of approach road to National Highway as no approval was given by the
National Highway Authority till 05.09.2017. Ex.C8 would also show that
neither sewerage connection has been allotted by the authority concerned
to the petitioner’s (GLADA) site nor Completion Certificate/Partial
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 15
Completion Certificate or Occupation Certificate was placed on record by
the petitioners (GLADA).
16. In regard to reliance placed by the learned senior counsel
upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bareilly
Development Authority (supra), is concerned, a perusal of the
abovesaid judgment would show that in the said case, the issue was in
regard to increase demand of estimated cost of the flats. It was held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the right of the parties inter se are
governed by the term of contract and not by constitutional provisions. The
facts and circumstances of the abovesaid case are totally different and
distinguishable, as such, the abovesaid judgment will not be applicable in
the present case.
17. A High Court while exercising its power of judicial review
against the order passed by the NCDRC, exercises a limited revisional
jurisdiction and interferes only in the cases where, there is an error
apparent in law or there is an illegality, impropriety or perversity in the
impugned order.
18. Since no defect in the order passed by the NCDRC has been
pointed out during the course of arguments and there is no evidence to
hold that the orders suffer from any illegality, impropriety or perversity or
incorrect appreciation of the evidence brought on record, we find that
there are no sufficient grounds existing in the present writ petition to call
CWP-27717-2025 (O&M) 16
for any interference in the order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed
by the SCDRC and the order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by
NCDRC. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.
19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
(GURVINDER SINGH GILL) (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
JUDGE JUDGE
17.09.2025
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes /No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....