BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus AJAI PAL SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 17-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BAREILL Y DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 
v. 
AJAI PAL SINGH & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 17, 1989 
[G.L. OZA ANDS. RA1NAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.) 
U.P. Urban (Planning and l)evelopment) Act, 1973: S.4--Bareilly 
Oevelopment Authority-Construction of dwelling units-Whether 
entitled to revise cost of houses/flats and rate of monthly instalments-
App/icants whether entitled to assail the action of the Authority in writ 
petition. 
A 
B 
c 
~-. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Artitles 12, 14, 32 & 226--Bareilly 
Development Authority-Whether other authority for purpose of Arti-
cle 12-Construction of flats and dwelling units-Cost of flats/rate of 
instalment revised on allotment-Whether amenable to writ jurisdiction. 
The appellant-Authority offered to register names of intending 
applications desirous of purchasing LIG, MIG, HIG and EWS type 
houses/Oats. The 'General Information Table' given in the brochure 
indicated the type of houses, corresponding income groups, cost, initial 
D 
t 
payment to be made, rate of interest and approximate monthly instal-
ments. Note (1) under the said table stated that the cost shown therein E 
was only estimated cost and it would increase or decrease according to 
the rise or fall in the price at the time of completion of the houses, while 
Note (2) stated that the date given therein could be amended as felt 
necessary. By 'clauses 12 and 13 contained in the brochure the Au tho-
, rity reserved its discretion to change, alter or modify any of the terms 
-~and/or conditions of the allotment as and when necessary. 
F 
\ 
All the respondents registered their names for allotment of the 
flats in accordanc,e ~ith the terms and conditions in tbe brochure and 
made the initial deposit. Subseqnently, they received notices from the 
Authority intimating the revised cost of houses and the amount of 
monthly instalment rates which were almost double of those initially G 
stated in the '~eneral Information Table'. The respondents were 
further informed that those who intend to buy houses on the revised 
price/instalments must send their written acceptance by the date 
specified other-wise their claims would not be included in the lots to be 
drawn. Except a few, all other respondents gave their unequivocal and 
unconditional written consent. Hence their names were included in the 
H 
743 
A 
B 
c 
l. 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
draws and on becoming lucky in the draw, they were allotted! their 
respective houses. 
At this stage, all the respondents approached the High Court 
under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the revised terms and 
conditions-on the ground that the appellants were estopped from 1:hang-
ing the conditions subject to which the respondents had applied for 
registration and deposited the initial payment, that the enhancement of 1
cost of the house amounting to alniost double of the estimated 1wst as 
shown in the brochure and the increase of the monthly instalments were 
much beyond their means and that this arbitrary and unilaterall stand 
of the appellants was to the prejudice of the respondents. These peti-
tions were resisted by the appellants by contending that the respondents 
were estopped from challenging the varied terms and conditions of the 
allotment after having consented. 
The High Court found the action of the Authority in fix1ing the 
revised cost and instalments arbitrary and unreasonable and directed 
D 
the appellant-Authority to re-determine the cost of the flats and instal-
ments payable by them after hearing the parties. 
In these appeals by special leave it was contended for the 
appellant-Authority that the income of the applicants was relevant only 
to determine the category of the scheme in which they harll to be 
E 
included for eligibility to get a house under the scheme but no! for 
enhancement of the cost of the house and monthly instalments, that it 
had fixed the cost of the houses and the rate of instalments after- taking 
into consideration the escalation in the priee of building material, 
labour charges, cost of transport and allied valuable factors which all 
enter into the price fixation, that in price fixation the executive has a ( 
F 
wide discretion and it is only answerable provided there is any statutory~ 
control over its policy of price fixation, and that after the parties had ' 
entered into the field of ordinary contract, as in the instant case, the 
relations were no longer covered by the constitutional provisiom; but by 
the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.