•
KM. PREETA SINGH ETC.
A
v.
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.
APRIL 22, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .TJ.]
B
Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965:
Rules 2(aa), 4( 1}-Allotment of Site-Demand of additional
price-Power of Development authority-Held, Allottee liable to pay sale price
C
including additional price, and cost of improvement-E11tire e:i.penditure i11-
cu1Ted to be bome by allottees--Development authoiiry-Harya11a Urba11
Housing Scheme.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7759 of
1996 Etc.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.5.91 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 16511 of 1990 .
Subodh Markandaya and Mrs. Chitra Markandeya for the Appel-
Janis.
Ms. Indu Malhotra (D.B. Vohra) (NP) for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition.
The question that arises for consideration is : whether the respon-
dents have committed any illegality in directing the appellants to pay a sum
E
F
of Rs. l lakh and odd as additional amount as intimated in their calculation G
memo dated August 9, 1990? The claim of the appellants is that the
respondents have no power to direct payment of the additional amount
when the appellants have already paid as per the original demand. It is true
that initially, the provisional amount was calculated at the rate of cost
incurred in the scheme known as the Haryana Urban Development Hous-
H
621
622
SUPREME COl:RT REPORTS 11996] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A
ing Scheme in Sector 21, Gurgaon. Thereafter, the appeJlants were called
upon to pay the additional amount. The contention is that the respondents
have got no power to call upon the appellants to pay the additional amount.
B
c
Section 2(aa) of the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Siles) Rules, 1965
defines "additional price" to mean such sum of money as may be deter-
mined by the State Government, in respect of the sale of a site by allotment,
having regard to the amount of compensation by which the compensation
awarded by the Collector for the land acquired by the State Government
of which the site sold forms a part, is enhanced by the court on a reference
made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the amount
of cost incurred by the State Government in respect of such reference.
Explanation cm;sagcs that "for the purposes of this clause and
sub-rule (l) of Rule 4, the expression "the court" means the court as
defined in Clames ( d) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
D where an appeal is filed, the appellate court."
'Sale price' has been absorbed in Rule 4.
A conjoint reading of the above rules would clearly indicate that the
E
allottee is liable to pay a sale price including the additional price and the
cost incurred and also the cost of improvement of the sites. It is to be
remembered Lhat the respondent-HUDA is only a statutory body for
catering to the housing requirement of the persons eligible to claim for
allotment. They dCquire the land, develop it and construct buildings and
F
allot the buildings or the sites, as the case may be. Under these circumstan-
ces, the entire expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition of
the land and develupment thereon is required to be borne by the allottees
\vhcn th~ sites or the buildings sold after the development are offered on
the date of the sale in a<.:cunJance \Vith thr; regulation~ and abo condition~
of ~ale-". It is s1;en that in the notice dated r'\ugust 9, 19901 the total area,
G .net .irca, the payable amount for the gross acreage, the acreage left for the
devdupmental purpose, balance recoverable from the plot holders, plot-
table area have been given for each of the area and recovery rate also has
been mentioned under the said notice. Under these c1rcumstances, there
is no ambiguity left in the calculations. If, at all, the appellants had got any
H
doubt, they would have approached the authority and sought for further
PREETASINGHv. H.U.DA
623
information. It is not the case that they had sought the information um! the A
same was withheld. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality
in the action taken by the respondents. The High Court, therefore, was
right in refusing to interfere with the order.
The appeals are dismissed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeals dismissed.
B
Lex