LexBRIJ MOHAN & ORS. versus HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 12 ...,. A BRIJ MOHAN & ORS. v. 't-- HARYANA'URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &·ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2011) B JANUARY 03, 2011 1 ~ [R.V •. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 'r · Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquisition for development of a city - Formulation of Scheme by State c . Urban Development Authority - Allotment of land to land • /osersloutsees - Rate to be charged in regard to such allotment - Actual land cost plus development charges for the plots allotted to oustees/land losers or market price/normal allotment price - Held: The Statute contemplates only D benefits like so/atium, additional amount and higher rate of -r interest to the land losers and not allotment of plots at cost price - State Government or HUDA also does not have any scheme providing for allotment of plots at actual cost to land losers - HUDA scheme requires the land loser-allottee to pay E the normal allotment rates for the plots to be allotted to them under the scheme - Thus, land owners should be allotted plots under the scheme at the initial price at which the Layout/ Sector plots were first offered for sale after the acquisition - r Merely because HUDA delayed the allotment in spite of the F qpplications of the outsees. and the order of the High Court, and made the allotments 'only after a contempt petition was filed, does not mean that the outsees become liable to pay the allotment price prevailing as on the date of allotment - HUDA directed to charge for th·e allotted plots only the rate G of Rs. 10321- per sq.m. (or Rs.8631- per sq.yd.) and not the rate • -l.. as revised in 1993 ,namely Rs.11221- per sq.yd. 'Normal allotment rate' -- Meaning of. ' Certain lands belonging to the appellants were H 12 BRIJ MOHAN v. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT 13 AUTHORITY acquired for the development of the city. The award was · A ~ passed and thereafter, the possession of the land was · taken. The first respondent-State Urban Development-. Authority formulated a Scheme for allotment of plots to . land losers/oustees at the. normal. allotment rates. The . c.laims of the outsees were to be invited before the Sector . s . was floated for the sale. The first responden_t developed ·:~ a layout f<>r the benefit.of·general ·public in. the acquired · ' lands and offered the residential plots. in that Sector for allotmentat the specified rate. 'The appellants were not · allotted plots. They filed writ petition seeking dfrectiQn to . c :the first respondentto allot each ofthem plot developed . 'by the respondents at cost on 'no profit and no loss .· basis'. Ttie appellants were allotted plots. at the normal . allotme.nt rate which was being charged from any . ordinary allottee to whom the plots were allotted in thaf . 0 . ~· Sector. The appellants again filed a writ petition seeking • •. direction that tile allo'tment should. be rriade at c~'t plus .· . developm~ht charges basis al)d not at market. prfoe; The · \ ·writ' petition' as also the appeal were d.ismissed. Therefore; the 1appeliants file~ the ·instant appeal. E '' Partly allowing the appeal, t.he Court "I ·. _ HELD: 1.1 If there was any statutory provision in the Land Acq'-'isition Act, 1894 or other scheme, providing for . allotment at cost price, a land loser could certainly clailn F allotment in terms of the. scheme. But the Statute · contempJates only benefits like solatium, 'additional amou~t and' higher rate of interest to the land losers and ' · ·····not allotment of plots at cost price. Nor does the State ' +Government or HUDA have any scheme providing for G . , allotment. of plots at actual cost to land losers. [Para 1 OJ . [22·E-G] . . · 1 ;2 Where there is a scheme but it does not regulate the, allotment price, it may be possible for the court· to · direct the State Government/Development' Authority to H 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A allot plots to land losers at a reasonable cost, and in special and extra-ordinary circumstances, it may also indicate the manner of determining the allotment price. But where the scheme applicable specifies the price to be charged for allotment, its terms cannot be ignored. If B any land loser has any grievance in regard to such scheme, he may either challenge it or give a representation for a better or more beneficial scheme. But he cannot ask the court to ignore the terms of an existing or prevailing scheme and demand allot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.