{"id":208102,"date":"2007-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007"},"modified":"2017-05-29T04:47:33","modified_gmt":"2017-05-28T23:17:33","slug":"hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Fertilizer … vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
Hindustan Fertilizer … vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION \n\n \n\n  NEW DELHI \n\n \n\n Original Petition No. 224 of 1997 \n\n \n\nHindustan Fertilizer\nCorporation Ltd.\n\n \n\nMadhuban,\n55,   Nehru Place\n\n \n\n  New Delhi  Complainant\n\n \n\n Versus\n\n \n\n  Ghaziabad\nDevelopment Authority\n\n \n\nVikas\nBhawan, Vikas Path,\n\n \n\n  Ghaziabad, \n\n \n\nUttar Pradesh-201 001    Opposite\nParty\n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n BEFORE: \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nHONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT \n\n \n\nMrs.\nRAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER\n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Complainant : Mr.\nG. Joshi, Advocate \n\n \n\nFor the Opposite Party : Ms. Reena\nSingh, Advocate with \n\n \n\n Ms.\nNeelam Singh, Advocate. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Dated   the 16th July, 2007 : \n\n \n\n O R D\nE R \n\n \n\n M.B.Shah , J. President.\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n   On\nthe basis of the scheme prepared and published by the Ghaziabad Development\nAuthority (GDA) for Commercial and Group Housing Scheme, 1988, Complainant,\nHindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (A Government of India Undertaking)\napplied for allotment of the land of 1,000 sq. meters for construction of its\noffice premises. The land was allotted to the Complainant in Kaushambhi area.\nThe Complainant paid a sum of Rs.40 lakhs on 31.3.1989 as well as lease rent\nequivalent to 10% of the cost of the plot. Possession of the said land was\nhanded over to the Complainant on 18.2.1992.  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Without\nexecuting the lease deed, in an unjustified manner, the Opposite Party demanded\nnon-construction levy and that too, as stated below. Hence, this Complainant is\nfiled praying that : \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n(a). direct\nthe Opposite Party to allow execution and registration of lease deed in\nrespect of office complex of the Complainant at Kaushambhi scheme without any levy charges; also direct\nthe Opposite Party to allow the Complainant 3 years levy free time for\ncompletion of construction of office complex from the date of execution and\nregistration of lease deed. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n(b). alternatively,\ndirect the Opposite Party, GDA, to refund the sum of Rs.40 lakhs along with 10%\nof the cost of the plot as lease rent amount already deposited by the\nComplainant with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till\nthe date of refund.  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n It is submitted\nthat the Complainant wrote number of letters from 20.3.1992 to 5.7.1994 for\nsupply of necessary information with regard to the execution of Lease\nDeed. The officer of the Complainant\nhad also met the Joint Secretary of the GDA on 18.3.1994 for this purpose.\nHowever, there was no response from GDA.\nFinally, GDA vide its letter dated 28.7.1994 supplied the required\ninformation and also informed that period of construction has expired on\n30.3.1992 and, therefore, directed the complainant to deposit Rs.12,56,774.40p. as non-construction\nlevy charges for non-construction for the period from 1.4.1992 to 30.8.1994\nprior to the registration of the lease. Thereafter, the GDA vide its letter\ndated 29.11.1994 intimated the Complainant that the time for construction has\nalready expired on 31.3.1992 and hence, levy charges for non-construction of\noffice complex for the period from 1.4.1992 to 30.12.1994 which comes to\nRs.14,96,160\/-. Immediately, the complainant wrote a letter dated 25.1.1995\ncontending that imposition of levy charges was illegal and requested the GDA to\nmake necessary arrangements for execution and registration of the Lease\nDeed. But, there was no response. Again, between 22.6.1995 and 12.6.1996,\nreminders were sent by the complainant with regard to unjustified imposition of\nlevy charges. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Finally,\nrealizing its mistake, GDA vide its letter dated 23.7.1996 intimated the\ncomplainant allowing 3 years time from the date of possession, which, according\nto them, expired on 13.2.1995, and, therefore directed the complainant to\ndeposit a sum of Rs.7,18,158\/- as non-construction levy charges for the period\nfrom 14.2.1995 to 13.8.1996. In response\nto this letter, the Complainant, vide its letter dated 8.8.1996 requested the\nGDA to give levy free reasonable time for constructing the building, and the\nperiod of 3 years may be extended from 23.7.1996 so that the Complainant would\ntake necessary action for construction of building after getting the lease deed\nexecuted. Thereafter, the Complainant sent reminders dated 24.9.1996,\n26.12.1996 and 4.2.1997. But, there was no response by the GDA. Then, the GDA\nby its letter dated 5.3.1997 informed the complainant about the imposition of\nlevy charges of Rs.10,37,337\/- from 13.2.1995 to\n31.3.1997 for getting the Lease Deed executed.\nHence, the complainant has filed this complaint on 1.10.1997 with the\naforesaid prayers. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n In\nthis complaint, it has also been contended that even though the possession of\nthe plot was delivered to the complainant in February 1992, without waiting for\ncompletion of 3 years, GDA has imposed levy of non-construction charges from\n1.<\/pre>\n
4.1992 to 30.8.1994.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Reply\/Contention of the Opposite Party:\n<\/p>\n
  Counsel
\nfor the GDA submitted that
\nthe GDA allotted the plot
\nin question to the complainant on 25.5.1989.
\nThe GDA by its letter dated 22.10.91 (Annexure-A to the written version)
\nrequested the Complainant to get the lease deed executed and registered.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Further it was contended that as per
\nclause 10.70 of the brochure the complainant\/allottee
\nwas required to get the lease deed executed and registered within 6 months from
\nthe date of allotment and that clause 10.50 of the brochure stipulated that the
\nlessee will have to complete the construction within three years of the
\ndelivery of the possession of the plot and the conditions so specified shall be
\nthe essence of the contract. It was also
\ncontended that the GDA was ready and willing and has duly informed the
\ncomplainant to get the lease deed registered.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  The
\nBoard of GDA vide its decision dated 3.9.1990 (annexure B) imposed a levy of
\n12% to 18% p.a. for non construction of the buildings on commercial plots. The Complainant took possession of the
\ncommercial plots in question only on 18.2.1992 and had not got the lease deed
\nexecuted nor took steps in regard to construction of building.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The complainants deposited
\nwith the GDA Rs.72 Lacs towards part payment of two
\nareas i.e. Rs.39, 88,736\/- for 1000 sq. meters land in Kaushambhi and
\nRs.32,11,264\/ for 2000 sq. meters plot at Vaishali. The GDA has contended that full cost of the
\nplots was not deposited by the complainant.
\nAs the complainant has not started construction on the plot at
\nKaushambhi, non-construction levy charges further accrued on it.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  It
\nis also contended that the Complainant has not paid the full price; that the
\nGDA was ready and willing to hand over the possession from 1989 itself; the
\nComplainant prior to 5.7.1994 never asked for necessary information in regard
\nto registration of lease deed, and when they asked for the information, the GDA
\nduly replied vide its letter dated 28.7.1994; and, that any person can know the
\nnecessary information in regard to registration of lease deed by making an
\nenquiry in the office of the Sub-Registrar, and, it is impossible even to
\nassume that the big corporation like the Complainant having expertise
\npersonnel, might not have the idea for registration, requisite amount of stamp
\npaper, and about the requisite number of passport size photographs.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 It is further
\ncontended that the Complainant is intentionally inter-mixing registration of
\nlease deed and imposition of levy. If the lease deed had been registered within
\nthe stipulated time,
\nthen the Complainant was not required to pay any levy for
\nnon-construction. It is also contended that the GDA has not received letter
\ndated 12.12.1994, 25.1.1995, 26.5.1995, 20.7.1995, 16.10.1995, and 30.1.1996.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Findings:\n<\/p>\n
  From the facts narrated above, it is
\nclear that possession of the flat was handed over to the Complainant only on
\n20.3.1992. For the reasons best known to the GDA without waiting for completion
\nof 3 years from 20.3.1992, it imposed levy of non-construction charges from
\n1.4.1992 to 30.8.1994. This action of the GDA, on the face of it, is illegal
\nand erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Thereafter,
\non the representation of the Complainant, levy charges were modified by letter
\ndated 23.7.1996, that non-construction levy charges would be from 1.4.1992 to
\n14.2.1995.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  It
\nis to be stated that during this period the Complainant, which is a
\nCorporation, owned by the Union of India, wrote number of letters to the GDA
\nrequesting for execution of the lease deed. That was not done for months
\ntogether. Hence, it was difficult for the Complainant to undertake any
\nconstruction over the land. Thirdly, the GDA has not produced any rules and regulations
\nfor imposition of levy for non-construction of the building on commercial
\nplots, except stating that the Board of GDA vide its decision dated 3.9.1990
\nhas decided to impose non-construction levy between 12% to 18% p.a. in case of
\ncommercial plots. But, it has not been made clear from where the Board has got
\nthe authority and the basis or criteria for fixing the non-construction levy
\ncharges.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  It
\nis to be stated that levy of non-construction charges from 1.4.1992 to 14.4.1995 is without application
\nof mind because before construction on the plot, the Complainant was required
\nto have lease deed registered in its favour. For the purpose, the Complainant
\nhas written various letters to the GDA, but there was no reply on behalf of the
\nGDA. From the following letters, which are produced on record, it appears that
\nthe Complainant (a Government of India Undertaking) has written various letters
\nrequesting the officers of the GDA to supply the necessary information as well
\nas to execute the lease deed. There was no response. If this is the behaviour of the officers of the GDA with the Government of
\nIndia Undertaking, we have to presume what would be the fate of an ordinary
\nman.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 At this stage,
\nwe would refer to the letters written by the Complainant to the GDA requesting
\nfor not to levy non-construction charges as well as for execution of the lease
\ndeed.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Letters written by the Complainant to the GDA from 20.3.1992 to
\n14.2.1995 requesting for not to levy non-construction charges as well as
\nexecution of the lease deed:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
.1.   The
\nComplainant vide letter dated 20.3.1992 requested the Opposite Party to let it
\nknow the procedure in detail as to how to execute the lease deed, payment of
\nregistration fee, stamp duty and time
\nlimit, etc. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
.(a). Dear Sir, <\/p>\n
Your may kindly be aware that HFCL has
\ntaken over the possession of plot No.1 and 2 at Kaushambi
\nmeasuring 997.44 mtrs. Under GDA
\nfor construction of our office building.\n<\/p>\n
Now, we intend to execute lease deed for
\nthe said plots and subsequently, construct office building on the said plots.\n<\/p>\n
To enable us to proceed further in the
\nmatter, we would request you to kindly let us know the detailed procedure of
\nexecuting lease deed, registration fee, stamp duty and time limit etc. <\/p>\n
An early action in this regard is
\nsolicited.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
.(b).   Thereafter, vide letter dated 28.5.1992, the Complainant
\nwrote a letter to the GDA to the same effect, as requested vide its
\nletter dated 20.3.1992, reproduced above.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
.(c).   Again, vide letter dated 20.8.1992, requested the GDA to
\nprovide the necessary information on top priority basis for execution of sale
\ndeed, etc. <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Subsequently
\nrepeated letters on 26.11.1992; 11.6.1993; 13.7.1993; 27.10.1993; 30.11.1993;
\n23.12.1993 are written to the same effect.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
.(d). Thereafter, letter dated 5.7.1994 was also addressed to
\nthe GDA for the same purpose. In this letter, it is also stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
In this regard
\nour representative had met your Jt. Secretary, Shri Shambu Nath and discussed the
\nmatter on 18.3.1994 in which he has assured that the imposition of levy
\nis being considered and necessary information will be given soon. We tried
\nmany times to talk to your Jt. Secretary, Shri Nath over the phone on a number of times in this regard
\nbut he could not be available and we talked to Shri Tyagi
\nand Shri Suresh in Commercial Department and we were told that the details
\nregarding Lease Deed will be sent soon. But it is regretted that no
\ninformation has been sent to us.\n<\/p>\n
You are hence
\nrequested to arrange to send the aforesaid details so that lease deed could be
\nexecuted immediately.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
.2.   Thereafter,
\nvide letter dated 28.7.1994, the GDA has informed the Complainant that the
\nlease deed would be executed if the Complainant deposits a sum of
\nRs.12,56,774.40 towards non-construction levy for the period 1.4.1992
\nto 30.8.1994. In the same letter, it is made clear that further action could be
\npossible only after depositing the levied amount.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Thereafter, vide letter dated
\n29.11.1994, the GDA informed the Complainant to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
 With reference to
\nyour letter dated 5.10.994 we have to inform that it is not possible to
\nconsider your request. According to allotment letter the period of construction
\nof building of the aforesaid plot has expired on 31.3.1992. So, you are
\nrequested to deposit a sum of Rs.14,96,160\/- in this
\noffice as levy for the period from 1.4.1992 to 31.12.1994.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In response to the above stated letter
\nof the GDA, the Complainant, vide its letter dated 25.1.1995, informed the GDA,
\ninter alia, as under:\n<\/p>\n
. according to para 10.50 of the brochure the period of construction of
\nbuilding starts from the date of the possession of the plot. Since
\nwe received the possession of the plot on 18.2.1992 only, so the period of the
\nconstruction of the building will end on 17.2.1995 only.\n<\/p>\n
 In
\nthis regard we will also like to inform that there is no
\nprimary essential facilities available for the construction of building
\nin the Kaushambhi Commercial Complex. So we could not construct the building
\nand one or two builders who started the construction have left them unfinished
\nin the absence of these facilities. So we have to say that we will not be
\nresponsible for the constructions of the building till the period the aforesaid
\nfacilities are not made available.\n<\/p>\n
 We
\nonce again, therefore, request you to arrange the execution of lease deed of
\nthe plot at the earliest, so that we may take further necessary action for the
\nconstruction of the building.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In the letter dated 12.12.1994, the
\nComplainant stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
Further to our
\nletter No. JFC\/CO\/SECTT\/GDA\/93\/114 dated 5.10.1994
\n(copy enclosed for ready reference) which is self explanatory, and the
\ndiscussions our representative had with you in your office on 5.10.1994,
\n24.10.1994 and 9.11.1994 this is to mention that we have not received any
\nintimation from your end.\n<\/p>\n
You are
\ntherefore, requested to kindly make necessary arrangements so that the lease
\ndeed is executed and registration is done in the office of the concerned
\nRegistrar at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n
 A
\nline in confirmation will be appreciated.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Thereafter, the Complainant vide its
\ncommunications dated 12.2.1996, 26.4.1996, 12.6.1996, requested the GDA to make
\nnecessary rectification in their decision for imposing levy and a reasonable
\nlevy free period might be informed to them for taking further action for
\nconstruction of the building and getting the lease deed executed in respect of
\nthe above plots.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Apparently,
\nthere is merit in the contention of the Complainant that it was not at fault for not getting
\nthe lease deed executed and registered, as fault for the same was on the part
\nof the GDA, as the GDA had declined for execution and registration of lease
\ndeed unless the demand of the levy raised by it for the period 1.4.1992 to
\n13.2.1995 is paid. (Ref. Letter dated 28.7.1994).\n<\/p>\n
  From
\nthe facts narrated above, it is clear that the Complainant which is a
\nGovernment of India Undertaking cannot start construction without having lease
\ndeed registered. All throughout it waited for details for registration of lease
\ndeed, but there was no response by the officers of the GDA. It is difficult to
\nbelieve that the GDA had not received the letters quoted above. Hence, the
\nstand taken by the GDA that it had not received the letters cannot be accepted.
\nIn these set of circumstances, in our view, on the basis of the facts of this
\ncase, this would be a fit case for directing the GDA not to levy
\nnon-construction charges from 1.4.1992 till the date of the execution of the
\nlease deed and also for the period during which the complaint remained pending
\nbefore this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Further,
\nit is to be stated that, in the alternative, the Complainant has prayed
\nthat the GDA be directed to refund the amount deposited by it with interest at
\nthe rate of 24% p.a. from the date of its deposit till its return.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Direction(s):\n<\/p>\n
 In
\nthe result, for the reasons stated above, it is directed that the GDA shall not
\nlevy non-construction charges from 1.4.1992 till the date of execution of lease
\ndeed and also for the period during which the complaint remained pending before
\nthis Commission, i.e. from 1.10.1997 till the date of the decision.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Further, option
\nis given to the GDA to take back the possession after refunding the entire
\namount deposited by the Complainant with interest at the rate of 12% (the Complainant has claimed interest at the
\nrate of 24%) from the date of the deposit till the date of payment. This option shall be exercised within four
\nweeks from the date of the receipt of the order. Otherwise, the option will not remain in
\nforce.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Lastly, it is to
\nbe clarified that if any extra amount is allegedly paid by the GDA on the basis
\nof the decision given in Original Petition No.170\/1994 by this
\nCommission, then the same shall be
\nadjusted. However, before adjusting the
\namount, a Certificate of the Chartered Accountant to this effect shall be given
\nby the GDA to the Complainant for its verification.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The complaint is
\nallowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
……………………………J <\/p>\n
(M.B. SHAH) <\/p>\n
PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
…………………………..\n<\/p>\n
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) <\/p>\n
 MEMBER<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Hindustan Fertilizer … vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Original Petition No. 224 of 1997 Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. Madhuban, 55, Nehru Place New Delhi Complainant Versus Ghaziabad Development Authority Vikas Bhawan, Vikas Path, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201 […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nHindustan Fertilizer ... vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Fertilizer ... vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-28T23:17:33+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Fertilizer … vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T23:17:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2102,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Fertilizer ... vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T23:17:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Fertilizer … vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Hindustan Fertilizer ... vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Fertilizer ... vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-28T23:17:33+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Fertilizer … vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T23:17:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007"},"wordCount":2102,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007","name":"Hindustan Fertilizer ... vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T23:17:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-fertilizer-vs-ghaziabad-development-authority-on-16-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Fertilizer … vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 16 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/208102","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=208102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}