{"id":204507,"date":"2004-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004"},"modified":"2017-11-30T17:31:05","modified_gmt":"2017-11-30T12:01:05","slug":"ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: H.K. Sema, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7173 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nGhaziabad Development Authority \n\nRESPONDENT:\nBalbir Singh\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/12\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. SEMA &amp; TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>O R D E R <\/p>\n<p>\tHeard the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the<br \/>\nNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short `the<br \/>\nCommission&#8217;) awarding interest @ 18% per annum.  In view of the order<br \/>\nthat we propose to pass, necessary facts leading to the filing of the present<br \/>\nappeal are obviated.  In fact, the appellant has deposited\/paid the entire<br \/>\namount of 18% interest and in that view of the matter the appeal is virtually<br \/>\nrendered infructuous in view of the order rendered by this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1682813\/\">Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh<\/a> (2004) 5 SCC 65:\n<\/p>\n<p>24.\t&#8220;We clarify that in all cases where interest has already<br \/>\nbeen paid @ 18% irrespective of the above order, the<br \/>\nauthority will not be entitled to call upon the party to<br \/>\nrefund the amount which has already been paid.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>This Court after threadbare consideration of the submissions in Balbir<br \/>\nSingh&#8217;s case (supra) in paragraphs 8, 9, 22 and 23, by way of illustrations,<br \/>\nas to under what circumstances interest @ 18% would be justifiable.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t&#8220;However, the power and duty to award compensation<br \/>\ndoes not mean that irrespective of facts of the case<br \/>\ncompensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform<br \/>\nrate of 18% per annum.  As seen above, what is being<br \/>\nawarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or<br \/>\ninjury.  It therefore necessarily has to be based on a<br \/>\nfinding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the<br \/>\namount of loss or injury.  Thus the Forum or the<br \/>\nCommission must determine that there has been<br \/>\ndeficiency in service and\/or misfeasance in public office<br \/>\nwhich has resulted in loss or injury.  No hard-and-fast<br \/>\nrule can be laid down, however, a few examples would<br \/>\nbe where an allotment is made, price is received\/paid but<br \/>\npossession is not given within the period set out in the<br \/>\nbrochure.  The Commission\/Forum would then need to<br \/>\ndetermine the loss.  Loss could be determined on basis of<br \/>\nloss of rent which could have been earned if possession<br \/>\nwas given and the premises let out or if the consumer has<br \/>\nhad to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent<br \/>\nactually paid by him.  Along with recompensing the loss<br \/>\nthe Commission\/Forum may also compensate for<br \/>\nharassment\/injury, both mental and physical.  Similarly,<br \/>\ncompensation can be given if after allotment is made<br \/>\nthere has been cancellation of scheme without any<br \/>\njustifiable cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThat compensation cannot be uniform and can best be<br \/>\nillustrated by considering cases where possession is being<br \/>\ndirected to be delivered and cases where only monies are<br \/>\ndirected to be returned.  In cases where possession is<br \/>\nbeing directed to be delivered the compensation for<br \/>\nharassment will necessarily have to be less because in a<br \/>\nway that party is being compensated by increase in the<br \/>\nvalue of the property he is getting.  But in cases where<br \/>\nmonies are being simply returned then the party is<br \/>\nsuffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money<br \/>\nin the hope of getting a flat\/plot.  He is being deprived of<br \/>\nthat flat\/plot.  He has been deprived of the benefit of<br \/>\nescalation of the price of that flat\/plot.  Therefore the<br \/>\ncompensation in such cases would necessarily have to be<br \/>\nhigher.  Further if the construction is not of good quality<br \/>\nor not complete, the compensation would be the cost of<br \/>\nputting it in good shape or completing it along with some<br \/>\ncompensation for harassment.  Similarly, if at the time of<br \/>\ngiving possession a higher price or other amounts are<br \/>\ncollected unjustifiably and without there being any<br \/>\nprovision for the same the direction would be to refund it<br \/>\nwith a reasonable rate of interest.  If possession is refused<br \/>\nor not given because the consumer has refused to pay the<br \/>\namount, then on the finding that the demand was<br \/>\nunjustified the consumer can be compensated for<br \/>\nharassment and a direction to deliver possession can be<br \/>\ngiven.  If a party who has paid the amount is told by the<br \/>\nauthority that they are not in a position to ascertain<br \/>\nwhether he has paid the amount and that party is made to<br \/>\nrun from pillar to post in order to show that he has paid<br \/>\nthe amount, there would be deficiency of service for<br \/>\nwhich compensation for harassment must be awarded<br \/>\ndepending on the extent of harassment.  Similarly, if after<br \/>\ndelivery of possession, the sale deeds or title deeds are<br \/>\nnot executed without any justifiable reasons, the<br \/>\ncompensation would depend on the amount of<br \/>\nharassment suffered.  We clarify that the above are mere<br \/>\nexamples.  They are not exhaustive.  The above shows<br \/>\nthat compensation cannot be the same in all cases<br \/>\nirrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the<br \/>\nconsumer.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.\tIn Civil Appeal No. 7224 of 2002 the respondent had<br \/>\napplied for a house in a scheme floated in 1992.  He had<br \/>\npaid the entire cost.  He had been allotted a flat and<br \/>\nissued a reservation letter.  Yet no possession was given.<br \/>\nThereafter, in 1996 the respondent was informed that for<br \/>\nunavoidable reasons the house has been allotted to<br \/>\nsomebody else and if he desires, he can obtain an<br \/>\nalternate flat at a much higher price.  This, therefore, is<br \/>\nalso a case where there is absolutely no justifiable reason<br \/>\nwhy the party has not been delivered possession of the<br \/>\nflat which had been allotted to him nor has any offer been<br \/>\nmade to return his money with interest.  Instead the body<br \/>\nhas asked the party to apply for an alternate flat at a<br \/>\nhigher rate.  In our view, on these facts the award of<br \/>\ninterest at the rate of 18% is justified.  It is not just<br \/>\ninterest on the amount invested but is also compensation<br \/>\nfor the harassment and agony caused to the allottee.  We<br \/>\nhave given these two instances only by way of<br \/>\nillustrations.\n<\/p>\n<p>23.\tAs stated above, the interest, in both these cases will be<br \/>\npayable from the date the monies were paid till they are<br \/>\nretained or deposited in court\/tribunal.  We, however,<br \/>\nclarify that merely because we are maintaining awards of<br \/>\ninterest, it must not be taken to mean that in future the<br \/>\nCommission\/Forum must not work out compensation<br \/>\nunder various heads and that they can continue to grant<br \/>\ninterest only by way of damages\/ compensation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior counsel, however, contended that<br \/>\ninterest should be reckoned from the &#8220;date&#8221; of deposit to the &#8220;date&#8221; of offer<br \/>\nof possession and not actual taking of possession.   He, therefore, contended<br \/>\nthat when the body offers to the allottee for taking of possession and if the<br \/>\nallottee does not take possession without assigning any reasons nor reply to<br \/>\nthe offer of possession, no interest from the date of offer would be accrued<br \/>\non the amount deposited by the allottee.  There is some substance in this<br \/>\ncontention.  Now the consumers are aware that interest are being awarded<br \/>\nfor belated delivery of possession\/non-delivery of possession and<br \/>\nunscrupulous consumer may, on one pretext or the other, deliberately avoid<br \/>\ntaking of possession with a design to earn more interest.   In the present case,<br \/>\npossession was offered on 26.2.1996.  The allottee did not take the<br \/>\npossession nor furnished any reply to the offer of possession.  He filed a<br \/>\ncomplaint on 28.2.1996 before the District Forum and ultimately, possession<br \/>\nwas delivered on 14.8.1996.  In our view, in such a situation, if there is no<br \/>\nreply filed by the allottee assigning the reasons for not being able to take<br \/>\npossession, the rate of interest would be reckoned from the date the amount<br \/>\nis deposited to the date the offer for possession is made by the body.<br \/>\nSimilarly, if the allottee replies to the offer stating thereunder the reason for<br \/>\nnot taking over the possession, as offered by the body, and the reason<br \/>\nassigned is reasonably acceptable the Commission may then examine the<br \/>\nreasons assigned by the allottee and may pass necessary order.  In the<br \/>\npresent case, the offer of possession was made on 26.2.1996.  Instead of<br \/>\ntaking possession or filing reply to the offer, the allottee filed a complaint<br \/>\nbefore the District Forum on 28.2.1996.  Thereafter, the allottee took the<br \/>\npossession only on 14.8.1996.  There is nothing on record to show that the<br \/>\nallottee has replied to the letter of offer of 26.2.1996.  This being the<br \/>\nposition, the allottee would not be entitled to the interest from 26.2.1996 till<br \/>\npossession was delivered on 14.8.1996.  As explained above, the position<br \/>\nwould have been different had the allottee filed reply to the letter of offer.<br \/>\nAs this type of litigation is recurring in nature, we are of the view that<br \/>\nother contentions of Mr. Vijay Hansaria also deserve consideration.<br \/>\nLearned Senior counsel submits that in case of delivery of possession,<br \/>\nalbeit belatedly, the rate of interest could be different from non-delivery of<br \/>\npossession\/ cancellation of scheme\/ offer of alternative plots\/flats at higher<br \/>\nprice which has already been dealt with by this Court in Balbir Singh&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra).  Normally, a case of delivery of possession, though  belatedly,<br \/>\nstands on a different footing from non-delivery of possession at all because<br \/>\nin case of delivery of possession, though  belatedly, the allottee also enjoys<br \/>\nthe benefit of plot\/flat.  Generally, in such a situation the rate of interest<br \/>\nshould not exceed 12%.  However, as already observed by this Court in<br \/>\nBalbir Singh&#8217;s case (supra) no hard-and-fast rules can be laid down.  In a<br \/>\nspecific case where it is found that delay was culpable and there is no<br \/>\ncontributory negligence by the allottee resulting in harassment\/injury, both<br \/>\nmental and physical, the Forum\/Commission would not be precluded from<br \/>\nmaking an award in excess of 12% interest per annum.  Such order must,<br \/>\nhowever, be supported with reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>There is yet another contention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant, which requires consideration.  Mr. Hansaria submits that the<br \/>\nperiod the stay granted by the High Court\/Court remains operative should<br \/>\nnot be counted towards the award of interest.   In the present case, the stay<br \/>\norder was operative from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993.  This Court in Balbir<br \/>\nSingh&#8217;s case (supra) has dealt with this contention and held that after the<br \/>\nenquiry if it was found that the authority was prevented from delivery of<br \/>\npossession to anybody by the stay order the interest for the period for which<br \/>\nthe stay was operative could be refused.  We reiterate the view that in such a<br \/>\nsituation the authority could make an inquiry and if the enquiry report<br \/>\ndiscloses that the developmental activities\/construction of the plot\/flat comes<br \/>\nto a standstill by reason  of interim order thereby prevented the body from<br \/>\ndelivery of possession, the interest for the period the stay was operative<br \/>\ncould be refused.  Similarly, if the inquiry report shows that despite the<br \/>\noperation of the interim order the developmental activities\/construction<br \/>\ncontinued and the body was not prevented from delivery of possession, the<br \/>\ninterest could be awarded during such period also.<br \/>\nAs the appellant has already deposited\/paid 18% interest amount, they<br \/>\nare precluded from calling upon the party to refund the same.<br \/>\nThe appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004 Bench: H.K. Sema, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7173 of 2002 PETITIONER: Ghaziabad Development Authority RESPONDENT: Balbir Singh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/12\/2004 BENCH: H.K. SEMA &amp; TARUN CHATTERJEE JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T O R D [&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-204507","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>Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004 - 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\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-30T12:01:05+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\\\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T12:01:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1858,\"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\\\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T12:01:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004 - 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\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-30T12:01:05+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\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T12:01:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004"},"wordCount":1858,"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\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004","name":"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T12:01:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghaziabad-development-authority-vs-balbir-singh-on-3-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 3 December, 2004"}]},{"@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\/204507","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=204507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}