THE BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DHRUVA & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
THE BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
DHRUVA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2950 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Allotment – Allotment of plots – Demand of additional price
for the plots was raised from the respondents-allottees on account
of enhancement of compensation of the land utilized for carving
out the plots allotted – Correctness of – Held: Clause 5 in the
allotment letter shows that option was given to vary the price of the
plot in case there is change in the size of plot – This clause does not
talk about demand of additional price on account of enhancement
of compensation on account of acquisition of land for carving of
the plots – Even the clauses in the lease-cum-sale agreement also
talk about the negotiated price between the vendor (appellant-
Authority) and the vendee (respondent) – Sale consideration as such
has not been mentioned in the lease-cum-sale agreement however,
the price negotiated between the parties is clearly mentioned in the
letter of allotment and the same has to be read as part of the lease-
cum-sale agreement – No merit in the appeals.
Shimla Development Authority v. Asha Rani (1996) 8
SCC 487 : [1996] 2 SCR 1065; Tamil Nadu Housing
Board and Others v. Sea Shore Apartments Owner’s
Welfare Association (2008) 3 SCC 21 : [2008] 1 SCR
370 – distinguished.
Ishwar Dass Nassa & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
(2012) 1 SCC 753 : [2011] 16 SCR 301; Preeta Singh
(Km) and others v. Haryana Urban Development
Authority and Others (1996) 8 SCC 756 : [1996] 1
Suppl. SCR 621 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1996] 2 SCR 1065
distinguished
Para 6
[2008] 1 SCR 370
distinguished
Para 7
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 862
862
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
863
[2011] 16 SCR 301
referred to
Para 12
[1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 621
referred to
Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2950
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2016 of the High Court
of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in RSA No. 760 of 2008.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2951 and 2952 of 2023.
S. N. Bhat, Sr. Adv., M. A. Hulyal, Tarun Kumar Thakur,
Mrs. Anuradha Mutatkar, Ms. Parvati Bhat, Advs. for the Appellant.
Manjunath Meled, Anil Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. This order will dispose of bunch of appeals bearing Civil Appeal
Nos. 2950-2952 of 2023. The common judgment of the High Court vide
which five Regular Second Appeals were decided has been impugned.
From the matters listed before this Court, it is evident that the
judgment of the High Court has been challenged only in R.S.A. Nos.
759, 760 and 864 of 2008 and there are no appeals filed in R.S.A. No.758
and 863 of 2008. The learned counsel for the appellant did not point out
at the time of hearing that there is any other appeal pending in this Court
challenging the common judgment of the High Court with reference to
the aforesaid two appeals.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The particulars regarding the present appeals and the respective
plot numbers in the individual cases are stated as under:
THE BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
DHRUVA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
4. As common legal issues are involved, the facts have been
extracted from Civil Appeal No.2950 of 2023. The undisputed facts of
this case are that, Respondent/ Plaintiff in the present appeal made
application to Appellant/Defendant No.2 (Belgaum Urban Development
Authority, in short ‘BUDA’) for allotment of residential site. The appellant
allotted site to the plaintiff. The allotment letter was issued on 12.11.1990.
Possession of the site was handed over to the plaintiff. Thereafter, lease-
cum-sale agreement was executed on 10.05.1991 in favour of plaintiff/
respondent.
5. As demand of additional price for the plot was raised from the
respondent, suit was filed. The Trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal,
the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed. In second
appeal filed by the appellant, the judgment and decree of the lower
appellate court was reversed. The same is under challenge before this
Court. The High Court, in second appeal, directed the appellant to execute
the sale deed in favour of respondents in RSA Nos. 864,758 and 863 of
2008 and further directed to refund the additional price paid by the
respondents in RSA Nos. 759 and 760 of 2008.
ARGUMENTS:
6. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant subm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.