http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: AWASAN MANDAL PARIJAT UCHAYAWARG SANGHARSH SAMITITHROUGH PRE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/03/1997

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.P. Kurdukar, J.      Leave granted. 2.   The dispute  in all  these connected  civil appeals  is confined to  the cost  of the  land. The appellants in these appeals belonged  to the second, third and fourth quarter of allotment of  the houses Board and the copy thereof was made available to  the court  during the course of hearing. These costing principles were made applicable from 1st April, 1988 and no  dispute was  raised by  any of  the parties  at  any stage. 3.   The appellants  who were  the writ  petitioners in  the High Court alleged that the houses for the applicants of the first and  second quarter  were ready  by November, 1990 and the letters  of allotment  were accordingly  issued  to  the applicants of  both these  quarters on  or about January 29, 1991.  The   grievance  of   the  appellants  who  were  the applicants of  the second quarter was that possession of the houses were  given to  the allottees of the first quarter in March, 1991,  but, however,  the possession of the houses in respect of  the second  quarter was  given to the appellants about nine  months later  i.e. in December, 1991. The houses to be  allotted to  the applicants  of the  third and fourth quarter  were   also  ready  much  before  March,  1992  and accordingly the  allotment letters  were issued  to them  in November, 1992 issued demand cum possession letters to them. It was  the grievance  of the  appellants before  the courts below that  the Rajasthan  Housing Board  had  discriminated them while  determining the  cost of  the land in respect of all these  four quarters. For the first quarter, the cost of the land  was determined  at Rs.  38,178/- whereas  the land cost charged  from the  allottees of  the second,  third and fought quarters  was increased  to Rs.  72,765/-. They  also made a grievance as regards the increase in the construction cost but,  however, that  issue does  not survive  in  these appeals.  The   appellants  made   representations  to   the Rajasthan Housing Board complaining about the discriminatory treatment meted  out to  them while  determining the cost of lands  vi-a-vis   the  applicants   of  the  first  quarter. According to  them, land  costing should  not differ  as the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

chunk of  the land  was purchased in one lot and, therefore, there was  no justification  to increase  the land  cost  in fourth quarters.  They further  made a grievance that for no fault  of  theirs,  if  the  development  of  the  land  and construction of  the houses  thereof  were  delayed  by  the Rajasthan Housing  Board, they  should not  be made  to  pay higher land cost. They, therefore, prayed that the land cost should be  the same  in respect  of second, third and fourth quarters of  1988 as  fixed for  the allottees  of the first quarter of  1988. This  request of the appellants was turned down by  the Rajasthan  Housing Board  by relying  upon  the costing principles  which they had  adopted. The appellants, therefore, filed  there separate  writ petitions challenging the action of the Rajasthan Housing Board. 4.   The first  respondent-the Rajasthan Housing Board filed the detailed  reply justifying  the increase  in the cost of the land  in respect of second, third and fourth quarter and pleaded that  they have  strictly  adhered  to  the  costing principles which  they have applied uniformly . They further pleaded that  cause for delay in completing the construction of the houses was beyond their control. In the meantime, the development cost  also increased and accordingly they had no option but  to refix  the land  cost in  accordance with the costing principles  which they  had  followed.  Neither  any discrimination while  fixing the  land cost  was resorted to nor any  profit was made by them by enhancing the land cost. There is  no substance  in any  of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners and, therefore, on relief could be granted to them. 5.   Both the  parties in support of their rival contentions produced several  documents before the learned Single Judge. After hearing  the parties,  the learned Single Judge. After hearing the  parties, the learned Single Judge by his common judgment dated  16th November, 1992 disposed of all the writ petitions holding  that the land of all the four quarters of 1988 had  been utilised by March, 1991 and, therefore, there was no  justification for charging higher land cost from the allottees  of   the  second,   third  and   fourth   quarter (appellants). The  learned Single  Judge, however, held that the Housing Board had not violated the rules framed by it on 9th January,  1988. It further held that the land cost forms a distinct  and different head from "Developmental Cost" and that paragraph  6 of  the scheme  with permitted increase in cost. As  regards the  increase in  the construction  to the appellants because  it involved  disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into in the writ petition. Aggrieved by this judgment  and order passed by the learned Single Judge, both the  contesting parties  filed Special  Appeals in  the Rajasthan High  Court and  the learned  Division Bench after hearing counsel for the parties vide it’s judgment and order dated August  8, 1995  allowed special appeal Nos. 12/93 and 14/93 filed  by the  Rajasthan Housing  Board and others and dismissed the  special appeals  Nos. 83/93,  84/93 and 85/93 filed by  the writ petitioners/appellants before us. The net result, therefore  is that  the writ  petitions filed by the appellants came to be dismissed. 6.   Dr. Rajiv  Dhawan, Learned  Senior Counsel appearing in support of  these appeals  urged that  the Rajasthan Housing Board had  failed to  give sustainable reasons as to why the land cost  should be  different in  respect of  allottees of second, third  and fourth  quarter then the allottees of the first quarter,  particularly, when  it  is  undisputed  that housed of  the first  quarter as  also of the second quarter were ready  much before  29th January,  1991. The  houses in respect   of    both   these   quarters   were   constructed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

simultaneously and if this be so, there was no justification whatsoever to  increase  the  land  cost  and  issue  demand notices thereof  to increase  the allottees  of  the  second quarter. As  regards  allottees  of  the  third  and  fourth quarter, counsel  urged that  when the  entire chunk  of the land was  purchased at one time for the scheme, there was no question of  increasing the  land cost in respect of second, third and  fourth quarter  houses. the land was the same but while determining  the land  cost in  respect of these three quarters, an artificial enhanced price structure thereof was resorted to  without any sustainable justification. Counsel, therefore, urged  that there  is patent  discrimination  and violation of  the Rules  and Regulations framed by the Board while promoting  the scheme.  Counsel drew  our attention to the reasoning  the scheme. Counsel drew our attention to the reasoning the  scheme. Counsel  drew our  attention  to  the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge and urged that the same  was supported  by Rule  4.1.1. and  there  was  no reason whatsoever  for the  Division Bench to upset the said reasoning. 7.   Mr. Ganguli,  Learned Senior  Counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Housing Board took us through the brochure and the relevant Rules  and  Regulations  framed  by  the  Rajasthan Housing Board  in respect of costing principles. He drew our attention to  the Rules  and in  particular to  the  caption titled as  " Cost  of Undeveloped  Plan" containing  various Rules from  4.1 to  4.28. He  reiterated that  the Rajasthan Housing Board had worked out the land cost in respect of the first, second,  third and  fourth quarter  in terms of these rules and  there is  nothing on  the record to indicate that the Rajasthan  Housing Board had tried to make any profit by increasing land  cost. He  urged that  the Rajasthan Housing Board  had   to  borrow   loans   from   various   financial institutions on  interest and  in order  to  square  up  all developmental charges,  construction, interest  etc., it was necessitated to increase the land cost in respect of second, third and  fourth quarter.  He further  urged that under the brochure itself,  it was  made quite clear that the price of houses itself,  it was  made quite  clear that  the price of houses in  respect of these four quarters will be determined at the  time of  issuance of letter of allotment and handing over of  possession with  reference to  the quarter in which such letter  of allotment/possession  would be  issued.  The appellants having  accepted the terms and conditions set out in the  brochure, they  cannot be  now heard to say that the Rajasthan Housing  Board has  resorted to the discrimination thereby offending  Article  14  of  the  Constitution  while fixing the land cost differently in respect of second, third and fourth  quitter. Counsel, therefore, urged that the view taken by  the Division  Bench of the Rajasthan High Court is the correct view and cannot be assailed on any premiss. 8.   We  have   given  our  careful  thought  to  the  rival contention raised  before us  and we  find that the impugned judgment does  not suffer  from any infirmity. The Rajasthan Housing Board  in its  brochure as  well as in its Rules and Regulations had  made it  clear that  the cost  of the house would differ  for  each  quarter  depending  upon  in  which quarter the  latter of  allotment/possession would be issued to the allottee. How the cost of a house would be worked out is provided  under Rule  4.1.  to  4.28  falling  under  the caption "Cost  of Undeveloped  Land." Under para 4.2.1., the cost of  development was determined by the Rajasthan Housing Board by  applying the  costing principles  in the following manners:-      i)   Levellingg &  dressing of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    ground;      ii)  Construction   of   bituminous      roads;      iii) Cost of drains & culverts;      iv)  Cost of water supply lines;      v)   Cost   of    electric   lines;      vi)  Cost of sewer lines      vii) Cost of street lights;      viii)    Costs    of    plantation,      horticulture & parks;      ix)  Misc.      In addition to the above heads, the cost of development shall  also   include  the  cost  of  constructions  of  the following items:-      i)   Primary          School/Higher      Secondary School      ii)  Hospital/Dispensary      iii) Community Centres      The total  expenditure on  development is worked out on the   basis   of   actual   expenditure   plus   anticipated expenditure. In  paragraph 11 to 16 of the written statement filed by  the Housing  Board, it has indicated as to how the construction cost  was worked  out and how the land cost was required to be enhanced to Rs. 315/- per square metre. After going through the pleadings of the parties in his behalf, we are of  the opinion  that the land cost which was determined of the  Housing Board is in consonance with the brochure and the costing principles reflected in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.1.5, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that  although construction  of the houses of the first and  second quarter  was completed when the possession of the  houses was allotted to the allotted of first quarter and therefore, there was no justification in not issuing the letters of allotment to the allotted of second quarter. This contention has no merit because the development word was yet to be completed and, consequently the possession thereof was delayed by about nine months. Since the allotment letters of the houses  of second quarter fell during the financial year 1990-91, the land cost stood enhanced in view of the costing principles. The same was true in respect of third and fourth quarter houses  as the  letters of  allotment were issued in the financial  year 1991-92  on  different  dates  i.e.  9th December, 1991  and 5th  February,  1992  respectively.  The construction of the construction of the houses in respect of second and  third quarters was delayed beyond the control of the Housing  Board. Consequently, the land cost was required to be  re-determined on the basis of costing principles. All these factors  were very much known to the Rajasthan Housing Board and  they were fully aware of the terms and conditions set out  in  the  brochure  and  other  relevant  Rules  and Regulations. We  have carefully  considered the  contentions raised on  behalf of  the parties in this behalf and we find that the  Rajasthan Housing  Board had  committed  on  error while determining  the land  cost differently  in respect of second, third  and  fourth  quarter  based  on  the  costing principles. It  also needs  to be  stated that the Rajasthan Housing Board  had borrowed huge sums from various financial institutions for  which it  was required to pay the interest thereon. The  appellants are  unable to demonstrate that the land cost  determined by  the Rajasthan Housing Board was in violation of  any of  the terms  and  terms  and  conditions mentioned in  the brochure and/or Rules or Regulations or it had deviated  from the Board’s policy of providing houses on profit on loss basis. 9.   For the  foregoing conclusions,  we are  of the opinion

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

that all  these appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. In  the circumstances  of this  case, the parties are directed to their own costs.