NOIDA Land Dispute Not a Competition Issue: CCI Dismisses Complaint

NOIDA Land Dispute Not a Competition Issue: CCI Dismisses Complaint

India's antitrust regulator, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), has dismissed a complaint against the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The complaint alleged that NOIDA misused its dominant position in the market for selling or auctioning residential plots.

The CCI bench, led by Chairperson Ms Ravneet Kaur and including Members Mr Anil Agrawal and Ms Sweta Kakkad, ruled that the issue appeared to be a disagreement between the complainant and NOIDA, not an abuse of dominance.

Vivek Gupta, referred to as the "Informant," filed a complaint against the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), claiming they have sole control over land management in Noida township of Uttar Pradesh, adjoining Delhi. This, according to Gupta, grants them a monopoly on acquiring, developing, auctioning, assigning, leasing, and selling land in the area. Gupta further stated that in 2019, NOIDA invited public applications for an auction of residential plots in various Noida sectors. He participated by paying a registration fee of ₹2,500 and an additional ₹12,95,800 to take part in the auction process.

After winning the auction, Gupta was allotted a plot in Sector-122, Noida, for ₹1,29,58,000. He received the allotment letter on August 26, 2019, and claims to have paid a total of ₹1,50,76,056 for the plot. However, upon visiting the site after obtaining the necessary documents, he discovered the land was occupied by farmers and faced threats from unknown individuals. Gupta alleges he made multiple attempts to address these issues with NOIDA but was unsuccessful. He requested an alternative plot in a similar location, compensation for damages, and other incurred charges. Additionally, he claimed that NOIDA had intentionally auctioned the disputed property without informing him.

Gupta filed a complaint through the Uttar Pradesh government's Integrated Grievance Redressal System Portal. He also challenged the issue in the Allahabad High Court through a writ petition. Additionally, Gupta filed a complaint with the CCI, alleging that NOIDA violated Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by abusing its dominant position.

The CCI noted that Gupta had also filed a case in the Allahabad High Court, where he challenged NOIDA's failure to deliver the plot as promised in the lease agreement. NOIDA, in its response to the court, claimed the plot was unavailable due to a dispute and offered to return the money Gupta had paid by issuing a cheque for ₹1,40,98,522.

The CCI held that the issue appeared to be a disagreement between Gupta and NOIDA regarding the land allotment, rather than a violation of the Competition Act. As the complaint focused on a specific contractual dispute, the CCI deemed it unnecessary to investigate further aspects like market dominance or potential abuse of power typically relevant in competition law cases.

The CCI concluded that, based on a preliminary assessment, the case did not constitute a violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act. As the dispute centred on a specific contractual disagreement between Gupta and NOIDA, the CCI deemed further investigation into market dominance or potential abuse of power unnecessary. Consequently, the matter was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act.