LexHARYANA URBAN DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. versus RANJAN DHAMINA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
;, A HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANDANR. v. RANJAN DHAMINA AND ANR. DECEMBER 17, 1996 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Urban Development-Haryana Urban Development Authority-Condi- tions of Allotment-Clause 9--lndustrial Estate-Allotment of industrial plot-Pricing-Competent Authority is entitled to demand the price as on the C final letter: of allotment-Demand of enhanced price after issue of final letter of allotment-Justifiability-Additional demand pennissible only when cost of acquisition of land enhanced-When Demand liable to be quashed as illegal. An industrial plot in Sector 10 in Industrial estate, Gurgaon was provisionally allotted to the respondents. The price fixed for the plot was Rs. 1,54,870 at the rate of Rs. 154.87 per square metre. The respondent- plaintiffs deposited the demanded amount of Rs. 48,396.90 and the posses- sion of the plot was delivered to them on 14.11.1985. The respondents / started construction on .the plot and requested the appellants-defendants D to finalise the matter on receipt of the entire remaining price. The appel- E !ants demanded the enhanced price at the rate of Rs. 269.92 per square metre which was paid as by that time respondent had already spent a huge sum in making construction over the land and, therefore, had no other option than to agree to pay the enhanced price. The appellants issued the letter of allotment dated 24.11.1989 fixing the price of the plot at Rs. F 3,78,250. The balance amount was paid. When the respondents requested I to get the conveyance deed executed the appellants issued the letter dated 5.4.1990 intimating the respondents that the rate of plots had been revised further to the extent of Rs. 560.60 per square metre and, therefore, respon· dents were required to pay a further sum of Rs. 4,66,847. The respondent G filed the suit for a declaration that the notice issued by the appellants demanding the additional sum of Rs. 4,66,847 was illegal, invalid and inoperative and as such the appellants were not entitled to claim that amount. The appellants challenged the maintainability of the suit alleging H 241 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. A that the appellants were entitled to a higher sum In accordance with the decision of the authority as the price fixed ·Initially was tentative. The suit was decreed and It was held by the trial judge that the appellants were not entitled to the enhanced amount. as under condition 9 of the letter of allotment enhancement could be claimed only when the cost of land got B enhanced on account of award of the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act and when there was no material to indicate that the cost of the land was increased on acc'.>unt of award of compensation the appellants were not entitled to raise the additional amount. In appeal, the . appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial judge and dismissed C the appeal. Second Appeal was dismissed as the appellants could not indicate any error in the judgment. Hence this appeal by Special Leave. The appellants contended that the price indicated in the latter of ailotment was tentative and when clause (9) of the letter of allotment postulated enhancement of the cost or the land the authorities were jus· D tlfied in raising the additional demand. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HEl:J) : Clause (9) of the letter of allotment issued by the Haryana E Development Authority unequivocally indicated that if there has been any enhancement in the cost of the land on account of award by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act then the said enhancement would be payable proportionately as determined by the authorities. The aforesaid clause does not authorise the allotting authority to raise addl· tional demand on account of any other escalation. It is well settled that F the competent authority is entitled to demand the price as on the date of final letter of allotment. Even though the appeal arises out of a dvil suit and parties had laid evidence in the forums below and no evidence was laid indicating the enhancement of cost of land on account of any develop· mental work. Yet the appelJant being a public authority, this Court had G directed by Order dated 23.9.1996 to place materials to indicate any development eft'ected to the plaintiffs' plot from the date or possession given to the plaintiffs and the resultant enhancement of the prices. It was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.