{"id":105596,"date":"2000-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000"},"modified":"2015-02-27T01:43:04","modified_gmt":"2015-02-26T20:13:04","slug":"prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000","title":{"rendered":"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Sethi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, R.P. Sethi.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 5875  of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nPRASHANT KUMAR SHAHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t03\/04\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS. Saghir Ahmad, &amp; R.P. Sethi.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    The\t appellant  applied  for  the allotment\t of  a\tplot<br \/>\nmeasuring 350 sq.mtrs.\tunder the Scheme of &#8220;Indrapuram&#8221; and<br \/>\npaid  registration amount of Rs.42,000\/- on 28th July, 1989.<br \/>\nA  further  sum of Rs.63,000\/- being the reservation  amount<br \/>\nwas  paid  and\tplot  allotted to him  vide  letter  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-authority  dated  5th November, 1989.  The  first<br \/>\ninstalment  of\tRs.76,125\/- was paid by him on 16th  August,<br \/>\n1990.\tFurther\t instalments  during 1990-95 were  not\tpaid<br \/>\nallegedly  on  the ground that the respondent-authority\t had<br \/>\nnot made any development at the site.  The appellant further<br \/>\nstated\tthat  he was made to believe that the possession  of<br \/>\nthe plot would be handed over to him by the year 1991.\tVide<br \/>\nletter dated 28th February, 1995, the appellant was informed<br \/>\nthat  if  the  balance\tamount is not paid by  him  by\t30th<br \/>\nNovember,  1995,  interest would be charged on\tthe  balance<br \/>\namount\tdue.  The appellant&#8217;s contention is that in terms of<br \/>\nthe  aforesaid\tletter the interest, if any, can be  charged<br \/>\nfor  the period commencing from 30th November, 1995 and\t not<br \/>\nearlier\t to  it.   He  had  already  paid  a  total  sum  of<br \/>\nRs.5,74,993\/-  but  the respondents were  allegedly  wrongly<br \/>\ninsisting  for\tthe  payment  of  an  additional  amount  of<br \/>\nRs.2,34,127\/- before delivery of possession of the plot.  As<br \/>\nthe  plot  was not delivered to him, the appellant  filed  a<br \/>\ncomplaint  under  Sections  36A,  36B(a)   and\t36D  of\t the<br \/>\nMonopolies  &amp;  Restrictive Trade Practices Act\t(hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred  to  as &#8220;the MRTP Act&#8221;) before the  Monopolies\t and<br \/>\nRestrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred<br \/>\nto as &#8220;the Commission&#8221;) which was registered as Unfair Trade<br \/>\nPractice  Enquiry  No.92\/97.   Notice of enquiry  under\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of the MRTP Act was issued to the respondent who<br \/>\nappeared  before  the  Commission  and\tcontended  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant  himself  through his letter dated 13th  December,<br \/>\n1996  admitted\tthe  delay  in payments\t and  indicated\t his<br \/>\nwillingness to pay the entire amount outstanding against him<br \/>\nwith  the request not to cancel the allotment due to delayed<br \/>\npayments.  The amount liable to be paid by the appellant was<br \/>\nstated\tto have been calculated strictly in accordance\twith<br \/>\nthe  terms  and conditions of the brochure circulated.\t The<br \/>\nrespondents  could have cancelled the allotment in terms  of<br \/>\nthe  regulations  contained in the brochure but it  was\t not<br \/>\ndone  to facilitate the appellant to make the payment of the<br \/>\nbalance\t amount.   It  was   contended\tthat  the  necessary<br \/>\nfacilities   of\t sewerage,  drainage,\twater\tsupply\t and<br \/>\nelectricity   connections  were\t made\tavailable   to\t the<br \/>\nplot-holders  including the appellant in Indrapuram  Scheme.<br \/>\nRegarding delivery of possession, it was contended on behalf<br \/>\nof  the\t respondent-authority,\tthat in\t the  brochure\tonly<br \/>\nestimated  time\t of completion of scheme was  indicated\t and<br \/>\ndelay  in  completion  had occurred due to  various  factors<br \/>\nincluding  the constraints of funds.  It was further pleaded<br \/>\nthat  the paucity of financial resources had been caused due<br \/>\nto  delay  or default in payment by the allottees  like\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   On\t the basis of the pleadings of the  parties,<br \/>\nthe  Commission\t framed the following issues:  &#8220;1.   Whether<br \/>\nthe  respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices<br \/>\nas alleged in the NOE?\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.\tWhether these unfair trade practices are prejudicial<br \/>\nto  the\t interest of the complainant\/ other members  of\t the<br \/>\npublic?\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.\t Whether  he  is   entitled  to\t relief\/compensation<br \/>\nclaimed made by him in the compensation application?\n<\/p>\n<p>    4.\tRelief, if any?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    After  referring  to  the  pleadings  and  the  evidence<br \/>\nproduced, the Commission concluded:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;It transpires that the applicant\/complainant has of his<br \/>\nown  accord,  approached  the respondent and  indicated\t his<br \/>\nwillingness to pay the amount due from him.  Not only has he<br \/>\nshown his desire to clear the dues, he has also acknowledged<br \/>\nthat there has been delay on his part in making the payment.<br \/>\nPerusal\t of  the  allotment letter reveals that there  is  a<br \/>\nstipulation  with  regard to payment of interest  and  penal<br \/>\ninterest  if  the payment is not made within the  prescribed<br \/>\ntime  limit.   As both the applicant\/complainant as well  as<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t are  relying on the  allotment\t letter,  it<br \/>\nstands\tto  reason  that the  outstanding  amount  including<br \/>\ninterest should be calculated in the light of this letter of<br \/>\n5.11.1989.   It appears from the affidavit of evidence filed<br \/>\non  behalf of the respondent that the calculations have been<br \/>\nmade  on  the  basis of that letter and the  respondent\t has<br \/>\naccordingly,\t indicated    the\tamount\t  to\t the<br \/>\napplicant\/complainant.\t In  that  view of the\tmatter,\t the<br \/>\napplicant\/complainant&#8217;s\t contention that interest should  be<br \/>\ncharged\t after\t30th May, 1995 is not tenable.\tIt  is\talso<br \/>\nquite  apparent that there has been delay in the  completion<br \/>\nof  the\t project  but  delay seems to have  been  caused  by<br \/>\ncircumstances  beyond the control of the respondent.  It  is<br \/>\nalso  common  knowledge that there has been cost  escalation<br \/>\nand  cost  etimates  of 1989 need revision and\tthe  revised<br \/>\nestimate  is  bound  to\t be much higher\t than  the  original<br \/>\nestimate.  It appears that development of infrastructure and<br \/>\nprovision  of  utilities like water supply  and\t electricity<br \/>\nconnection  have  also\tcontributed  to\t  the  hike  in\t the<br \/>\nestimated  cost\t and  demand   for  additional\tcharges\t for<br \/>\nsewerage,   lease  rent,  etc.,\t  cannot  be  construed\t  or<br \/>\nconsidered to be an unfair trade practice on the part of the<br \/>\nrespondent.   It  also\ttranspires that\t the  respondent  is<br \/>\ncharged\t with  the  responsibility of  developing  land\t for<br \/>\nplots\/flats  and making the same available to the  allottees<br \/>\nlike  the  applicant\/complainant on actual cost value  basis<br \/>\nand  the  total\t cost  incurred\t by it\tis  required  to  be<br \/>\nrecovered  from the allottees.\tIn that view of the  matter,<br \/>\nthere  is  no  escape from the conclusion that\tno  case  of<br \/>\nunfair\ttrade  practices by and on behalf of the  respondent<br \/>\nhas been made out and no prejudice seems to have been caused<br \/>\nto the applicant\/complainant as a consequence thereof.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon<br \/>\na  judgment  of this Court in Bihar State Housing Board\t and<br \/>\nOrs.vs.\t Lalit Ram [1997 (10) SCC 339] submitted that as the<br \/>\nrespondent-authority  has been proved to be responsible\t for<br \/>\nthe  delay  in\tdelivering  possession\t of  the  plot,\t the<br \/>\nappellant  could  not be burdened to pay the penal  interest<br \/>\nfor  the period anterior to 30th May, 1995.  It is true that<br \/>\nif the authority is found to be responsible for the delay in<br \/>\ndelivery  of  the  possession of the plot in  terms  of\t the<br \/>\nagreement  arrived at or according to the assurance given in<br \/>\nthe  brochure,\tthe  allottee cannot be\t burdened  with\t the<br \/>\ninterest on the balance amount not paid by him.\t However, it<br \/>\nhas  to be found on facts as to whether the authority or the<br \/>\nallottee  was responsible for the alleged delay.   According<br \/>\nto  the available records and the submissions made on behalf<br \/>\nof the appellant it transpires that the schedule for payment<br \/>\nof  the total estimated cost of the plot being Rs.4,29,000\/-<br \/>\nand registration amount of Rs.42,000\/- was to be paid in the<br \/>\nfollowing  instalments:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;S.No.   Instalment\t Description Due date of payment  1.<br \/>\nReservation Amount 4.12.1989 2.\t Instalment No.1 4.5.1990 3.<br \/>\nInstalment  No.2  4.11.1990 4.\tInstalment No.3 4.5.1991  5.<br \/>\nInstalment  No.4  4.11.1991 6.\tInstlament No.5 4.5.1992  7.<br \/>\nInstalment No.6 4.11.199&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\tfurther\t transpires  that after paying\tthe  initial<br \/>\namount\t of  Rs.42,000\/-  the\tappellant  paid\t the   first<br \/>\ninstalment  of Rs.63,000\/- on 3.1.1990 and second instalment<br \/>\nof   Rs.76,125\/-   on\t16th   August,\t1990   total   being<br \/>\nRs.1,81,125\/-.\t Amounts  of  instalment due  on  4.11.1990,<br \/>\n4.5.1991,   4.11.1991,\t 4.5.1992    and   4.11.1992   were,<br \/>\nadmittedly,    not   paid   on\t   the\t due   dates.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent-authority  vide  its letter dated 28th  February,<br \/>\n1995  called  upon the appellant to make upto date  payments<br \/>\nand  10% of premium of his plot as lease rent and  Rs.4800\/-<br \/>\nas  sewer connection and water connection charges latest  by<br \/>\n30th  May, 1995.  It was pointed out that &#8220;if the payment is<br \/>\nnot made within the due date interest shall be charged @ 18%<br \/>\n&amp;  chokidata  fee  Rs.5\/-  per day shall  be  charged  after<br \/>\n30.5.95&#8221;.   Admittedly, till 16.10.1996 no amount was  paid.<br \/>\nEven  on  that\tdate  a sum of Rs.72,188\/-,  the  amount  of<br \/>\ninstalment  payable  on\t 4.11.1990 was actually\t paid.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  thereafter  paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on  7.1.1997<br \/>\nand  Rs.1,29,600\/- on 13.1.1997 before filing his  complaint<br \/>\nin  the Commission on 28th February, 1997.  Having failed to<br \/>\nperform\t his  part of the contract, the appellant cannot  be<br \/>\npermitted  to urge that he is not liable to pay the  balance<br \/>\namount\talong  with  interest  as   according  to  him\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-authority had failed to deliver possession as per<br \/>\nterms  of  the brochure.  The authority was not expected  to<br \/>\ndeliver\t possession  in\t the absence of the payment  of\t the<br \/>\nagreed\tamount.\t  Having failed to perform his part  of\t the<br \/>\nagreement,  the\t appellant cannot be permitted to  urge,  at<br \/>\nthis  stage,  that he was not liable to pay the interest  as<br \/>\nagreed\tto by him at the time of accepting the allotment  of<br \/>\nthe plot in his favour.\t The reliance of the learned counsel<br \/>\non  the\t letter dated 28th February, 1995 is also  misplaced<br \/>\ninasmuch  as by that letter he was given further opportunity<br \/>\nto  make the payment of the balance amount alongwith charges<br \/>\nmentioned  therein  by\ta   specified  date,  failing  which<br \/>\ninterest  and  chokidata  was to be charged from  him.\t The<br \/>\nletter did not envisage that such interest and chokidata was<br \/>\nto  be charged from a date subsequent to 30th May, 1995\t and<br \/>\nnot  prior  to\tit.   The mention of the date  was  only  to<br \/>\nintimate  the  appellant of the concession given to him\t and<br \/>\nupon  his  failure to avail of the benefit by the  specified<br \/>\ndate, he was liable to pay the interest as agreed upon.\t The<br \/>\njudgment  of  this  Court in Bihar State Housing  Board\t and<br \/>\nOrs.vs.\t  Lalit\t Ram (supra) is also of no help to him.\t  In<br \/>\nthat case the allottee was found to have been intimating the<br \/>\nBoard  time and again for completion of the construction  of<br \/>\nthe  plot but despite his request the same was not completed<br \/>\nand it was held that without completion of the construction,<br \/>\nthe  aforesaid\tallottee could not be asked to\texecute\t the<br \/>\nagreement  and\tupon his failure to execute  the  agreement,<br \/>\ncharged\t with  the  liability of paying the  interest.\t The<br \/>\nfacts  of  the\tpresent case are  altogether  different\t and<br \/>\ndistinguishable.   After  going\t through  the  whole  record<br \/>\nproduced  before  us, we find that no ground is made out  to<br \/>\ninterfere  with the order of the Commission in this  appeal.<br \/>\nThe  appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  The appellant is held<br \/>\nliable\tto  pay\t the  amount demanded from  him\t before\t the<br \/>\ndelivery of the possession of the plot.\t No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000 Author: Sethi Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, R.P. Sethi. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5875 of 1999 PETITIONER: PRASHANT KUMAR SHAHI Vs. RESPONDENT: GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/04\/2000 BENCH: S. Saghir Ahmad, &amp; R.P. Sethi. JUDGMENT: SETHI,J. L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J The appellant [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-26T20:13:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-26T20:13:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1752,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000\",\"name\":\"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-26T20:13:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-26T20:13:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000","datePublished":"2000-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-26T20:13:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000"},"wordCount":1752,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000","name":"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-26T20:13:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prashant-kumar-shahi-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-3-april-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105596","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105596"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105596\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}